Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 4) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders by Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill,


together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 1226 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against the Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted:

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Underground (Green Park) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in Session 1991–92 or the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1991–92 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Economy

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I regularly meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of issues relevant to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Salmond: At one of those regular meetings, will the Secretary of State take time to discusss the position of the local enterprise companies in the Scottish economy? Does he accept that the serious problems—indeed, chaos —that have been encountered in a number of local enterprise companies, including Dumfries and Galloway, indicate that something is deeply wrong with the structure that was established a few years ago—a structure which the Secretary of State will recall was meant to introduce a high-wage, high-skill economy and eliminate Scottish unemployment? Specifically, does the Secretary of State support the view of Forth Valley Enterprise that there should be a mandatory declaration of all directors' interests in any company that is being assisted? In a break with normal practice at Question Time, will the Secretary of State address and answer that question?

Mr. Lang: I do not recognise the picture of the Scottish Enterprise network of local enterprise companies described by the hon. Gentleman. Nor do I think it necessary to issue directives of any kind in the sense that he suggests. Matters of that kind are a matter for Scottish Enterprise. I am confident that, under its new chairman, its responsibilities are being well fulfilled.

Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over recent months unemployment in my constituency has fallen month by month? Does he recognise that, with the recent announcement of redundancies by Jetstream, that happy trend may change? Will he ensure that, in the future, Jetstream can compete in the world market on a level playing field?

Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend that unemployment has fallen in his constituency and is substantially lower than it was at the peak a few years ago. However, I share his concern to ensure the welfare of the major employers in his constituency. I note his concern over Jetstream and British Aerospace, and I am keeping in touch with developments there. I hope that the world market for the aircraft produced by BAe will improve in a way that will be beneficial to the company.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that if we look backwards we can see that the net result of 14 years of Tory Government has been to add more than 100,000 Scots to the doll queues? If we look forward, even his Department's economic bulletin forecasts a further reduction in the Scottish labour force of 34,000 over the next 10 years. Does he not understand that his stewardship

of the Scottish economy has caused a whole generation of our most talented and highly skilled youngsters to despair of ever finding a job in their own country? Does he not understand that if the Scottish economy is ever to be made to serve the needs of the Scottish people, it will require an elected Scottish Government set in a powerful Scottish Parliament, and with decisive powers of intervention in the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's question bears little relation to the facts. The fact is that unemployment is lower in Scotland than in any of the other countries of the United Kingdom. It is below the European Community average. Employment has risen by 169,000 in the past decade. The hon. Gentleman need only look at The Scotsman today to see the confident forecasts of the Confederation of British Industry on manufacturing, investment, exports, construction and a great many other sectors of the Scottish economy.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I ask my right hon. Friend, who is sitting beside Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, to intervene in the expenditure of the enterprise companies? They have spent nearly £500,000 on tweeifying a roundabout at Turnhouse airport. My right hon. Friend's Department is about to build a palace in Leith, bringing in extra bureaucrats at a cost of £65 million. In the present difficult climate for expenditure, could we not stop Government Departments spending so grotesquely?

Mr. Lang: I begin by welcoming my hon. and learned Friend back to the House, fully restored in health and vigour and as colourful as ever.
I hope that the term "grotesque" was not a subjective judgment on the architectural merits of the new Scottish Office building in Leith, which has been widely praised. I assure my hon. and learned Friend, however, that the financial implications of that building were rigorously scrutinised before the decision to go ahead was made.
The budgets of local enterprise companies are a matter for Scottish Enterprise, but I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend is telling me that its budget is too high. I note his comments nevertheless.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that during the 14 and a half years of his party's Administration, unemployment among newly qualified graduates has rocketed? Quite apart from the frustration that that must cause, will he agree that it amounts to a tremendous loss of skills and abilities from the Scottish economy? When he meets the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, what proposals will he have to ensure that there are jobs for these graduates?

Mr. Lang: The point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that the proportion of people going into higher education under this Government has doubled—from 17 to 34.5 per cent.—during the 14 years of which he speaks. Thus, if the number of people going into higher education doubles, inevitably the number of people who have difficulty finding jobs afterwards will also increase in the shorter term. We now have a higher trained, more highly qualified work force than we had under the Labour Government —a work force which wins praise from countries all around the world, as I discovered on my recent trip to the far east.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets and talks to Scottish Enterprise will he draw its attention to the fact that key industry in Germany is working one week in four? The work force performs one week of work and spends three on the equivalent of the dole. Does not that show how Government policies and Scottish Enterprise have brought Scotland through a world recession in much better shape than the former leading country of the European Community?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is also important is the focus and attention given to training by Scottish Enterprise. That is one of the keys to economic success. Germany benefited enormously from it in the 1960s and 1970s. By following its example, we are now in a position to benefit similarly in the 1990s.

Mr. George Robertson: When the Secretary of State meets the board of Scottish Enterprise and other Scottish industrialists who rightly look to the Government to create the conditions for growth and for business confidence, how will he explain to them what they have witnessed—the betrayal and destruction of an industry as vital and necessary as coal mining? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, by conspiring directly through a dodgy privatisation of the electricity industry and then artificially rigging markets, the Government have not only blitzed thousands upon thousands of jobs and livelihoods but virtually annihilated a whole industry? Does not that industrial vandalism give a clear signal to industrialists who want conditions for growth and investment that, when it comes to the bit, the Government do little and care less?

Mr. Lang: I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench of Scottish politics, and I congratulate him both on his success in the shadow Cabinet elections and on his richly deserved appointment as shadow Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the Government's policies have ensured the lowest inflation rate for some 30 years, the lowest interest rates for a generation and a competitive exchange rate. As a result, confidence is rising, investment and manufacturing output are increasing and orders are growing. All of those things can happen only if we are competitive in the sources of all our energy consumption. That is as applicable to coal as to any other energy source. If coal is competitive, coal prospers—if coal is uncompetitive, it cannot.

Trust Hospitals

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for trust status hospitals are currently being considered in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Following the announcement by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State on 15 October, nine third-wave NHS trust applications remain under consideration. An announcement on these will be made shortly.

Mr. Kynoch: I welcome the information that further hospitals are seeking trust status, which brings great benefits to large and small hospitals alike.
Is my hon. Friend aware that in Kincardine and Deeside, since Grampian Healthcare took on trust status there has been a 5.1 per cent. improvement in utilisation and a 7.1

per cent. increase in the use of maternity beds in community hospitals? Those hospitals are important to communities such as Torphins, which I will be visiting on Saturday. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging Grampian Healthcare to pursue a policy of further development of community hospitals in rural areas?

Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am aware that, since becoming a trust in April, Grampian Healthcare has increased significantly the services that it provides to patients. There are other examples in addition to those raised by my hon. Friend, such as the eating disorder and drug abuse services which the trust has introduced.
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that local flexibility, which is, of course, a feature of trusts, is the key to improving patient services.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that bringing trusts to Scotland has brought no benefit at all? Since 1990, the Government have spent £120 million for the additional costs of trust status. The Greater Glasgow health board has spent 21 per cent. of its funding on treatment care, and Lothian health board is offering BMWs to its consultants.
Does the Minister also agree that, from 1970 to 1980, the number of people on waiting lists for treatment care was never more than 60,000, and yet, with all the money that has been spent by the Government in Scotland, that figure has increased to 80,000?

Mr. Stewart: I am afraid that I must wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about tell Opposition Members why.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that the evidence is overwhelming. As a consequence of the establishment of the first wave of trusts, including the Aberdeen royal hospital trust—which received a charter mark aware today—and the South Ayrshire trust, more patients are being treated than ever before. Better services and facilities are being provided, and services are better adapted to patient needs. That is the reality.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the news from Foresterhill House shows how inaccurate the scaremongering of Opposition Members is? Will my hon. Friend remind the House that Opposition Members said that Aberdeen infirmary would go down the drain if it became a trust? Is not the infirmary doing well, and should not it be congratulated?

Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As usual, there were all sorts of forecasts of doom and gloom from Opposition Members which have been shown by the facts to be completely invalid.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister recall John Chawner, the chairman of the British Medical Association consultants committee, saying:
The introduction of Trusts has been an extremely costly exercise without proven benefit. Nothing that has happened under the NHS reforms has provided more money for services.
Does the Minister think that Mr. Chawner is ill-informed?

Mr. Stewart: The facts about the established trusts and the improvements that have been achieved are clear. I can give example after example. If the hon. Lady wants examples from North Ayrshire and Arran, I can tell her that a new day surgery unit and open access X-ray services have been provided. Also, the patients' friend welcoming


service initiative and improvements in accommodation and services for terminally ill patients and their families have been implemented. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome those improvements.

Local Government

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on his proposals to reorganise Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: I have had no discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue of local government reform since it decided to adopt its policy of non-co-operation. I and my colleagues have, however, held useful meetings over the summer with representatives of a number of individual authorities.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Secretary of State rule out any form of domestic water supply disconnection in Scotland and ensure that unelected and unaccountable water boards do not use self-disconnection and water meters as a reason for cutting off domestic supply, thus creating a liquid poll tax that hits the poorest hardest? Will he bear that in mind in his deliberations?

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that, at present, the law does not allow disconnections. I have no plans to change it.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called policy of non-co-operation adopted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has had as many relaunches and comebacks as Frank Sinatra? Will he urge COSLA to drop all pretence of non-co-operation, for the benefit of those local government employees who provide such sterling services, and for the people of Scotland who are the beneficiaries of those services?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The word "non-co-operation" has been redefined so many times as to lose its meaning. At present, some 28 local authorities support the convention, some 29 are against it and eight are undecided. That is hardly the way for the convention to unite local government in Scotland or to represent its interests or the interests of those who rely on its services.

Mr. Canavan: How is it that relatively minor local government boundary changes are referred to an independent commission, yet here we have the Government hell-bent on major surgery without any reference to an independent commission? Could it have anything to do with the Government's desperate desire to carve up the political map of Scotland to prevent the Conservative party from being virtually wiped off that political map, as the Conservative party in Canada was the other day?

Mr. Lang: I remember the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric before the general election, so nothing that he says surprises me. We are restructuring local government. Once local government is restructured, the Local Government Boundaries Commission will go to work on that in the usual way.

Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Secretary of State yet found anyone in COSLA or anywhere else who believes

his assertion that the transitional costs of restructuring local government will come to less than £196 million, let alone anyone who accepts his naive idea that any savings for council tax payers will arise from the restructuring? Has he yet grasped the fact that the folk of East Lothian want nothing to do with the folk of Berwickshire and the folk of Berwickshire want nothing to do with the folk of East Lothian?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that his hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) expressed the view during a television interview with me a couple of weeks ago that the cost might be £126 million. More to the point, the small cost that will be incurred in the first few years of reform will be cancelled out and compensated for many times over by the savings in the longer term.

Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his cordial words of welcome. I also had cordial and personally good relationships with the Minister for Europe in my last job.
Will the Secretary of State tell us this afternoon how he can possibly justify telling the Scottish people that he intends to pick the pockets of millions of ordinary families throughout Scotland by putting VAT on their heating bills to solve the Government's self-created budget deficit? On top of that, he intends to finance local government reorganisation by putting his hand in people's pockets again, to the tune of about £180 on every council tax bill in Scotland to pay for an unwanted, unnecessary, politically corrupt shake-up of local councils in Scotland. If this pick-pocket Government go on displaying an attitude of complacency and contempt for the electorate, what happened yesterday to the Tory party in Canada will happen to the Tory party in this country.

Mr. Lang: If that were so, I expect the hon. Gentleman would wish us to proceed with the policies that we have announced. The cost of reforming local government over the first five years will amount to 0.5 per cent. of the tot al funding that we give to local government. That sum will be rapidly recouped and more than compensated for by the on-going savings that will result, year after year, from the reduction in the number of local authorities and their reorganisation in a more coherent and efficient way. The residents of the local authorities will be the beneficiaries.

4. Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about his proposal to remove Berwickshire from the Borders for local government purposes.

Mr. Stewart: Some 400 individual letters have been received commenting on the proposal to unite Berwickshire and East Lothian in the new unitary authority. In addition, around 660 postcards, pro-forma letters and petition signatures have been submitted from Berwickshire.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister confirm that the vast majority of those representations are against the Government's proposals? Does he recognise that we in the borough of Berwick rely on close co-operation with the Berwickshire district and the Borders region to promote the good of the Borders? That will be much more difficult to achieve if Berwickshire is booted into East Lothian,


against the wishes of its inhabitants. How can the Government go on ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Berwickshire to stay in the Borders?

Mr. Stewart: I thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman was going to recommend that Berwick be moved into Berwickshire from across the border in England. Combining Berwickshire and East Lothian will produce a new authority with many common features—

Mr. Home Robertson: What?

Mr. Stewart: Coastal fishing villages, an agricultural hinterland and tourist development potential. We have listened to the representations—indeed, I am meeting the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 5 November—but there is a very strong case for our proposals.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge that the proposal to take Berwickshire out of the Borders region has caused more consternation in Berwickshire than anything else in living memory? Can he say how many of the 417 letters that he has received about the proposal were actually in favour of it? Will he advise the good people of Berwickshire and tell them what they have to do to get him to change his mind?

Mr. Stewart: I can certainly confirm that the great majority of the letters received were against the Government's proposals. In my experience, it is much more usual for people to write to the Government if they are against what is proposed. Berwickshire has been a part of the Borders region only since 1975. There is an historic parliamentary constituency of Berwickshire and East Lothian which, independently of the Government, the Boundaries Commission is recommending should be reintroduced.

Forestry

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to announce the conclusions of the Government's review of forestry policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's review of forestry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The forestry review group is continuing its work, and has recently appointed consultants to assist it. The group expects to present its advice to Ministers early next year. Thereafter, Ministers will consider what action, if any, should be taken.

Mr. Lidington: As my right hon. Friend's review will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, will he take note of the substantial concern in my constituency that any changes in the administration or management of the Forestry Commission should not lead to a reduction of public access to areas such as Wendover woods in my constituency, which is very greatly valued by local people?

Sir Hector Monro: I certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that the review group is considering the issue very carefully. The forest authority currently places tremendous emphasis on recreation, access to walks and

picnic sites and so forth. Such matters will be given careful consideration, and Ministers will consider what action to take when they receive the report next year.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the Forestry Commission in my Dorset constituency? It is centred in Wareham, and has increased timber production and provides Dorset with a wonderful leisure and educational resource. May I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), and ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he will keep such matters very much in mind when reading the review? Whoever owns the forests, all local people want to retain the access that has been expanded under the present Government.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Production from Forestry Commission forests is now very high, which helps our processors and others who have long-term contracts in this country. After the group has reported, we shall certainly give every encouragement to access, education and the other aspects that my hon. Friend has mentioned; they will not be overlooked.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister admit that, in the forests that the Commissison has already sold off, there have been 69 access agreements, none of which has worked? That is exactly what will happen if the Minister persists with his misguided proposal to sell off the whole of the forestry owned by the Commission. Given that the proposal is opposed by those who work for the commission, by those who represent constituencies with forestry interests and by all the hikers and ramblers, will he abandon it completely? Not only was it not included in the Conservative party manifesto; it was specifically excluded.

Sir Hector Monro: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is going off the rails. I wonder how many of the 69 access woodlands he has been to see.
It is important for the hon. Gentleman to realise that we have no preferred option, and have given no indication of intending to privatise the Forestry Commission. We have merely set up a group to review the whole issue and report back next year.

Mr. Eric Clarke: May I draw the Minister's attention to the existence of a world-renowned research establishment on the Bush estate, in my constituency? Those involved in forestry research there are worried about their future. Will the Minister guarantee that establishments connected with forestry will continue to exist, and explain how that will be possible?

Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, and for the high-quality work that they do on the Bush estate. However, we must wait until next year, when the group will have reported and Ministers will have had time to consider the way forward. We shall then make an announcement to the House.
I have a high regard for the work done by the Forestry Commission, its authority and enterprise. We shall have to see how things go next year.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency contains vast forest areas. Some are owned by private landowners; a substantial number are owned by the Forestry Commission. He will also know that there are no access problems in the privately owned areas: I regularly walk my dog there, as well as in the Forestry Commission


areas. Does my hon. Friend accept that we shall expect the same to apply if any change is made in the Forestry Commission?

Sir Hector Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said about "one man and his dog". There are many very good private landlords who welcome access to their woods, organise education programmes and in every way help the community. That contribution is equalled by the Forestry Commission, which has a broad and encouraging attitude to access for all forms of recreation. There is no reason for anyone to feel that that will not continue in the future.

Mr. McFall: Unlike the Secretary of State, I spent the summer visiting people in the forestry industry and spoke to environmentalists, recreationalists, local authorities and industrialists in the Caledonian Paper Mill Company, Irvine. All those people told me that wholesale privatisation will be a disaster for the industry. Given that the Secretary of State is in charge of the review, he has a chance here and now to give an unequivocal commitment that millions of people will have public access and enjoy the right to roam in forests. We wish to know whether the 15 per cent. of Scotland that is owned by the Forestry Commission will remain in public hands for the benefit of this and future generations.

Sir Hector Monro: The Secretary of State and myself live in the most afforested region in Britain so we are constantly in the forests, meeting foresters, and know what we are dealing with. We are well aware, too, of the importance of the production by the Forestry Commission to the major processors such as that which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, if he bothers to listen, that he and the rest of the Labour party got it wrong about water privatisation and probably will do so about the Forestry Commission as well.

Local Government

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss funding arrangements following local government reform.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The subject of the implications of local government reform for the voluntary sector was among the subjects discussed at the first meeting, on 11 May, of the new joint forum comprising Scottish Office officials and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. That topic is also on the agenda for the next meeting, which is to be held on 16 November.

Mr. Watson: The Minister will have to do a bit better than he did in previous meetings, because the voluntary sector in Scotland is very worried. What reassurances can he give to organisations such as Strathclyde Elderly Forum, One Plus and Strathclyde Poverty Alliance about their continued funding if local government reform goes ahead? Those organisations and many like them throughout Scotland—not just in Strathclyde—operate and are funded on a region-wide basis and have genuine fears for the future that are communicated to me and to other Opposition Members. The organisations want to know what transitional arrangements are to be made to ensure

that their funding is secure after local government reform so that the essential services that they increasingly provide and the jobs of the dedicated staff are maintained.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the general provisions of the Bill will provide for the transfer of rights, liabilities and obligations of the old authorities immediately prior to 1 April 1996 to either one or more of the new authorities. That reinforces the statement in the White Paper that existing funding arrangements for the voluntary organisations which extend beyond the date of reorganisation should be honoured. I am glad to say, however, that we shall be exploring, at the meeting on 16 November with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, issues involving initial costs because initial costs are difficult to quantify. We shall consider that subject thoroughly at the meeting and we shall bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister, like myself, is a former councillor and was probably involved in the last major reorganisation of local government. He knows that massive funds were spent in that reorganisation on finding premises, and on senior officials who sought redundancy rather than a move to the new local authorities. That will cost, as my hon. Friends have stated, at least £180 per ratepayer in the whole of Scotland. He must know that that means that there will be fewer funds available for the voluntary sector. Why go on with a reform of local government when, historically speaking, it has been only 20 years since we last had a major reform and we have not recouped the benefit of that reform?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I recall that after the last reform of local government the number of local authority officials increased by about 18,000 in two years. We are going from two tiers to one tier in this case and it is important that the difficulties which the hon. Member mentioned should be settled at local level. I expect the existing authorities, the new councils and the voluntary sector to co-operate in that connection to achieve appropriate solutions for the local circumstances.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I ask the Minister to remind Opposition Members about the last local government reforms? The only region in Scotland that did not alter was Fife, which is a socialist region, and they all awarded themselves a salary which rose from £6,000 to £18,000 overnight for doing nothing more.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very relevant point about the Kingdom of Fife. As far as this particular issue is concerned we believe strongly that the new local councils should determine their own priorities for funding voluntary sector activities, ensuring as much continuity as possible.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had regarding the proposed local government boundaries published in his White Paper.

Mr. Lang: Since the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The New Councils" in July, about 1,300 individual letters commenting on the reorganisation proposals have been received. In addition, about 25,000 postcards, pro-forma letters and petition signatures have been submitted.

Mr. McAvoy: The Secretary of State cannot point to any demand for the abolition of Strathclyde region, which is one of the best run councils in Britain. In my constituency, he cannot point to any demand for the removal of Toryglen from Glasgow. Does the Secretary of State accept that his proposals are unwanted, gerrymandered and expensive and will lead to substantial increases in the payments made by Scotland's council tax payers? Why does he not just scrap the White Paper?

Mr. Lang: On the contrary, I can find very few people prepared to stand up and defend Strathclyde. Any local authority that embraces half the population of Scotland cannot, by the normal definition, be regarded as local government. All the local authorities within that area welcome the fact that they will now have the freedom to exercise responsibility for all local authority functions on a scale that is more commensurate with the interests of local population. Toryglen is an issue about which we have had representations and at which we are looking closely. We shall be able to carry these matters further when we bring forward the Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Do not the citizens of the great Scottish cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen want their unitary authorities to be restored?

Mr. Lang: Yes, Madam Speaker, my hon. Friend is right. I find warm enthusiasm for the prospect of single-tier, all-purpose authorities in Scotland's great cities.

Sir David Steel: If the Secretary of State has had 1,300 individual letters from all over Scotland and more than 400 of them concern the removal of Berwickshire from the Borders, does not that indicate a high level of feeling in the Borders region about the proposal? Earlier this afternoon, we were told that Berwickshire had been part of the Borders region only since 1975. Is not that a fatuous statement since the region did not exist before 1975? It has been part of the Borders for many centuries. Will he please leave it there?

Mr. Lang: In parliamentary terms, it has been part of the Berwick and East Lothian parliamentary constituency for a considerable time. The number of letters suggests to me an orchestrated political campaign being run in that area.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Aberdeen all four political parties have been campaigning for a single-tier Aberdeen since 1974? Is he aware that when he visits Aberdeen on Friday he will be visiting a city which cannot wait for the new authorities in 1996?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward, as I always do, to visiting Aberdeen again. I am sure that I shall find strong support for our proposals.

Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State take cognisance of the vote that took place in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State, among the people of Barrhead? They voted massively and overwhelmingly to remain with Renfrew district council. It was a democratic vote, higher than any other local authority vote. Will the Secretary of State give his assurance that the people of Renfrew can remain with the people of Barrhead?

Mr. Lang: I believe in the democratic process. That process can express itself in the House when the Bill comes before Parliament.

Mr. McKelvey: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a series of well-attended meetings throughout Ayrshire and that, after earnest discussions, three main points are coming through from the public and the associations attached? First, they will not accept the partition of Ayrshire because it is seen as a gerrymander to create a Tory enclave. Secondly, historically, Ayrshire has always been known as Ayrshire and we do not wish to be divided into a poor north and rich south. Thirdly, overwhelmingly opinion is opposed to this, apart from a small group attached to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Does the Secretary of State agree that the majority of representations made from Ayrshire want Ayrshire to remain united?

Mr. Lang: I have had a variety of representations from people in Ayrshire about its future and it is not as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The representations vary between those who want one Ayrshire, those who want two Ayrshires and those who want three Ayrshires. At present, we are proposing two authorities in Ayrshire and the boundary is the one drawn from the Wheatley Commission proposals. I am sure that the matter will be debated further when the Bill comes before Parliament.

Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State accept that the issue of cost has turned the local government reorganisation into a tragic farce? Would the Scots have to pay with money that they do not have, for proposals that they do not want, from a Government that they simply despise? The question of who pays should be answered. Will the Treasury pay, in its £50 billion mess? Will services and jobs go, or will the council taxpayers pay? The reorganisation is a piece of pure political fraud which should be brought to an end at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Lang: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on remaining on the Front Bench and on his promotion? He was never very good at figures and in his question he got them wrong. The reform of local government will lead to long-term savings of considerable substance that will far outweigh the cost of implementing them. It is not a question whether we can afford them, but whether we can afford not to implement them.

Licensing Laws

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation to change the laws on licensing in the next Session of Parliament.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to amend Scots liquor licensing so soon after the major reforms introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that it is absurd that the Government turn a blind eye to supermarkets opening illegally in England? Part of that illegal operation is the selling of a full range of alcoholic drinks, whereas in Scotland, supermarkets open legally, but are not allowed to sell any alcohol whatever. Will he introduce changes to the law that will allow all off licences to open on Sunday?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree that the position is somewhat anomalous, as the hon. Gentleman says, but there are strong arguments from both sides. In October 1986, the Scottish Office conducted a consultation and the results were that 43 per cent. wanted the statutory prohibition relaxed, but 57 per cent. did not. So there is a deep division in Scotland on that subject and there are no immediate plans to change the law.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the lobby for off-licence trading on Sunday in Scotland is very much advanced by the trade? Will he assure the House that there will be no further erosion of the quality of Sunday in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It may be that in the fullness of time the matter will come before the House and be put to a vote. My hon. Friend is correct that the churches continue to express strong opposition to the Sunday opening of off-sales premises and the Scottish Retailing Licensing Law group has made representations in favour of the point that was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Since an important feature of the existing licensing law is to allow local authority licensing boards to determine many applications at their own discretion, would not it be appropriate for the Government to introduce legislation that allows local licensing boards to determine whether in their own areas Sunday opening of off-sales premises is legitimate?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Cathcart, we have no immediate plans, but I have little doubt that in the fullness of time the House will consider the matter again. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a known specialist on the subject as a Queen's counsel, that the tightening up of late-night licenses, which he spoke about in Standing Committee, has had a beneficial effect. Fewer late-night licenses are being awarded and that has resulted in less trouble that requires police involvement. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome that result.

New Towns

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial targets he has set each of the new town development corporations for the disposal of their industrial and commercial assets.

Mr. Lang: I am publishing the financial targets for the disposal of the new towns' industrial and commercial assets in the Official Report. All the new towns are on schedule to meet those targets and are progressing successfully towards maturity. I therefore now intend to consult on the basis that the wind-up of Livingston and Irvine new towns should take place on 31 December 1996. That would be two years and three years respectively ahead of earlier plans. The timetable for the other three new towns would remain as already announced.

Mr. Ingram: Why does the Secretary of State not simply admit that he has been told by the Treasury to asset strip the new towns? Is he aware that the business community and the wider community in East Kilbride and in the other new towns are frankly appalled by the mess

that has been made of the wind-up proposals? Why does not he just accept that he is wrong? Why does he not use the talents and assets in the new towns to regenerate the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the development corporations have made a mess of the wind-up of the new towns. They are handling the matter extremely efficiently and professionally, and I commend them for that. Asset stripping does not enter into the matter. The assets created in East Kilbride will remain in East Kilbride. The capacity of East Kilbride to continue to attract new investment and new employment will be maintained.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Can the Secretary of State explain how the following problem will be dealt with? The proposal for Scottish local government reform in my area is to put the new town of Cumbernauld into North Lanarkshire, which would take the town out of Dunbartonshire Enterprise. That would be a serious change taken with the loss of the drive for jobs that goes with the development corporation. Anything that upsets the special relationship with the local enterprise company cannot be good. What is the Scottish Office view on that?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point which must be addressed. We are considering the position there and we shall be able to develop our thoughts and to make our view plain as the local government Bill moves through Parliament. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I add that the responsibility for local authority services such as planning and the management of community assets will pass to the new local authority from the new town development corporations on 1 April 1996.

The following is the information:


Financial targets



£ million


East Kilbride
43.55


Glenrothes
15.23


Cumbernauld
14.50


Livingston
7.00


Irvine
2.35

Pensioners (Housing)

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the numbers of pensioners in Scotland living in houses which are (a) affected by dampness and (b) classified as difficult to heat.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Information is available from the Scottish house condition survey only for houses affected by dampness. An estimated 70,000 dwellings affected by dampness had heads of household of pensionable age.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for visiting my constituency during the recess and for seeing for himself the dreadful conditions in which some people have to live. Does he agree that the figure he has just announced to the House is an affront to his Government? Does he further agree that the evil imposition of VAT on heating bills will force thousands of pensioners and poor people to choose


between eating and heating? How many people does he estimate will die sooner rather than later as a result of his Government's policies?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is naturally expressing a view before the Secretary of State for Social Security takes all relevant factors into account when he makes a statement about benefits being increased for next April, before the higher bills arrive. The details of that uprating will be announced as soon as possible after the Budget statement in November. The hon. Gentleman has made a significant point and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) also referred to it. As well as the automatic increase in pensions by the retail prices index rate, which will include and reflect the increase in the cost of domestic fuel and power, such pensioners are also likely to receive housing benefit and/or council tax benefit. Our plans for extra help through such earnings-related benefits will assist them further. We sincerely hope that the dire circumstances that the hon. Gentleman envisages will not happen.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Instead of relying on the Minister's verbiage, would not it be much better to look at the facts? Do not the facts tell him that there is a great problem in Scottish housing with dampness and with condensation because houses were not built to proper heating standards? On every occasion, we are told that the problems are exacerbated by people's failure to afford proper heating. Why does not the Minister understand the damage that he is doing? Why does not he insist that the Government drop the VAT, and that they put more money into home insulation and into improving standards, rather than repeating the nonsense that everyone who is on a low income will be magically protected because he says that they will be?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should make it clear that the house condition survey also records that some three quarters of houses in Scotland have central heating, that more than half have satisfactory insulation of tanks and pipes and that more than three quarters have satisfactory loft insulation. As for the uprating of benefits, the Department of Social Security benefits—including the cold weather payment—for the elderly and those on low incomes are regularly reviewed, taking all relevant factors into account. The DSS will take all these matters into account before it makes a full statement about reviewing the benefits in due course at the end of the month.

Health Care

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what analysis he has made regarding the recent trends in per capita expenditure on health care in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: Between 1979–80 and 1993–94, real per capita gross spending on the national health service in Scotland has grown by 50 per cent. This represents an average annual growth rate of 3.8 per cent. over and above prices over the past 14 years.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How is that sustained growth in spending on the health service in the past few years translated into patient care in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that what matters is the effective use of those increased resources. Every year since the Government took office, record numbers of patients have been treated under the NHS in Scotland. An average of 22,500 extra in-patients and day case treatments have been given every year between 1979–80 and 1991–92. Those and a range of other statistics prove the consistent and steady improvement in the standard and quality of patient care under the Government.

Mr. Dunnachie: Is the Minister aware that in the six hospitals serving the city of Glasgow, one of which also serves his area, when a nurse reports sick she is not replaced, thereby making the staff shortage even greater and putting patients at risk? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Greater Glasgow health board is currently examining its acute service strategy, and we shall consider the proposals when they are put to us after consultation. I emphasise that steadily increased resources have been made available to the national health service in real terms over and above the increase in prices.

House Condition Survey

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take following the publication of the Scottish house condition survey 1991 report by Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authorities have been asked to set out strategies and targets for tackling below tolerable standard houses and housing subject to condensation and dampness in their housing plans and housing capital programmes from 1994–95 onwards. In addition, the improvement and repair grant system, which is a major tool in tackling poor housing, is currently under review.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister realise that the question was what he and the Scottish Office were going to do to tackle the appalling condition of approximately 30 per cent. of Scotland's housing stock, which is subject to dampness, condensation or mould? Not one hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency does not have to deal daily with such problems. Is it not most important that the Government should wipe out the housing capital debt, thereby releasing capital for our local authorities to renew and renovate their housing stock and bring it to a proper level of energy efficiency?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady's request would result in either a great deal more taxation or a great deal more borrowing, which is not our policy. We have asked all district councils in Scotland when drawing up their housing plans and strategies to give top priority not only to dampness but to below tolerable standard stock and homelessness, which is precisely what they are doing. We want a concerted strategy as soon as possible and substantial funds will be allocated in due course. Indeed, some have already been allocated, for example, the £513 million for capital investment in housing for this year.

Mr. Kynoch: In the context of surveys of housing conditions, can my hon. Friend give us some idea when the results of the radon survey in Deeside may be forthcoming?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office has commissioned the National Radiological Protection Board to make further surveys in the Dee valley and along a stretch of the Caithness and Sutherland coast. I understand that the board expects to publish the findings of the second survey into radon gas before the end of October. I should mention that radon is a natural radioactive gas whose presence is determined by local geology, especially by the existence of more uranium than usual in the rocks. The matter is being followed up quickly.

Mr. Connarty: I wonder at the Minister's complacency. Can he really mean it when he boasts about housing conditions in Scotland, when 392,000 houses suffer from

condensation, and the survey reported that 267,000 are suffering from dampness? I hope that he does not mind if I correct his figures, but if we add the 52,000 senior citizen households with dampness to the 65,000 with condensation, we see that one in five of all Scottish households that include a pensioner have either dampness or condensation. I do not know how the Minister can possibly boast when, after 14 years of the Government's bungling, less than three quarters of Scottish houses have decent central heating and less than half have double glazing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not boasting at all. Of course there are problems, but I am trying to put the matter in perspective. Thoroughly thought-out planning and strategies are required to deal with it. The percentage of houses with severe dampness is relatively small, and, of course, top priority must be given to dealing with such houses throughout Scotland.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that the timing of statements is no responsibility of yours, but has the Prime Minister given you any idea when he intends to report on the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Cyprus?

Madam Speaker: The Prime Minister has not been in touch with me on that matter, but I believe that a written answer will appear in today's Hansard.

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a general rule, motions proposed in the House require notice, unless they are of a formal or uncontentious character. Will you advise me whether a motion proposed by me, welcoming a decisive vote by the civil service trade unions, in a big turn-out, in favour of strike action against the Government's market testing proposals in the civil service, would be regarded as uncontentious as there is general support in the House for civil servants' right to take industrial action? May I therefore propose such a motion without giving formal notice?

Madam Speaker: We take motions in the normal way, and the hon. Gentleman is putting a matter to me concerning a motion that I have not had the chance to see for myself. He should give me that chance first.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any representations from hon. Members about security in the House? I am sure that it has come to everyone's notice that it is no longer seen as fitting to leave documents around this place, as we all share photocopiers, offices and other such facilities, and Opposition Members are keen on ensuring that confidential documents are placed in the public domain. Can you, Madam Speaker, do anything either to separate honourable colleagues or to improve security in this place?

Madam Speaker: All that is required is for hon. Members in ail parts of the House to show a little more care when making duplicates of documents.

Summer Time (Amendment)

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Summer Time Act 1972; and for connected purposes.
If my Bill were enacted, instead of turning our clocks back as we did last Sunday, we should remain on British summer time—that is, Greenwich mean time plus one hour —throughout the year but would advance the clocks a further hour between March and September. That would give us all an extra hour of evening daylight throughout the year. To quote Monday's leader in The Times, it
would add an hour of daylight to the part of the day when almost everyone is awake and active.
I am a relatively recent convert to single-double summer time, or central European time, as it is also known. However, one has only to recite its advantages to wonder how on earth we have managed to avoid introducing it for so long. I would like to pay particular tribute to the efforts of the Daylight Extra campaign, particularly its chairman, Angus Crichton-Miller—a good Scottish name—in arguing the case for double summer time. It would mean saving many lives on our roads, put British industry and commerce on an even footing with our European competitors and bring substantial benefits to the lifestyles of young and old alike.
There are many good reasons for the change, and I will concentrate on three of them. There is now clear evidence, particularly from the Policy Studies Institute, that, in a full year, there would be about 140 fewer deaths on our roads if we were to introduce double summer time. In all, 2,000 or more road casualties would be avoided, with an annual saving, including national health service costs, of £200 million.
Available evidence from bodies such as the Transport Research Laboratory indicates that darker mornings are less of a risk to life and limb than darker evenings are. In the morning people are more alert, but in the evening they are less so. That is no doubt why organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents are in favour of my proposal.
Only last Sunday I led a torch-lit march down Whitehall and through Parliament square in support of my proposal. We had a minute's silence outside St. Stephen's entrance in recognition of the 140 unnecessary deaths that could occur in the next 12 months.

Mr. Bill Walker: What about the situation in the north?

Mr. Waterson: I am coming to that matter.
British industry and commerce also suffer under the present system. Except for a brief period during the year, our business men are hampered by a time difference of an hour or even two hours when they fly to Europe for a meeting. Even conducting business by telephone is made more difficult.
Nowhere are the advantages more clear cut than in the tourism industry. I take a particular interest in that subject as joint secretary of the Back-Bench tourism committee. Moreover, tourism matters a great deal to my constituency, among others. In Eastbourne, it brings in about £100 million a year and supports 6,000 jobs. The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board fully support the proposal, and the Policy Studies Institute estimates that


more than £1 billion would be gained by the British tourism industry if we were to be on the same time as the continent.
Just imagine the extra jobs that could be created. It would make it easier for travel between this country and the rest of Europe and make for easier scheduling. I stress that that will be particularly important as the channel tunnel comes on stream. It would also lengthen the tourism season in many parts of the country and allow longer opening hours for tourist attractions. Many more British and overseas residents would consider taking their holidays in Britain.
Another very powerful reason for the change is the effect that it would have on the lives of our citizens, particularly older people. It is a sad fact of modern life that in many parts of the country, including my constituency, older people are often unwilling to venture out after dark or even answer their doors. The current system acts as an unofficial curfew for many people and affects the quality of their lives. That point is borne out by the four British crime surveys that were conducted by the Home Office between 1982 and 1992 and by the 1989–91 national travel survey.
My proposal would mean more hours of daylight throughout the year and it would allow pensioners and others to go out and about until later in the day. Nor is the potential benefit limited to older people in our population. Younger people would have more time to engage in sports and other activities before dark. There is some evidence that, with more daylight, crime figures would improve. It must be an advantage for women walking home alone that they are more likely to do so in daylight.
There is also likely to be a significant saving of at least £250 million in energy costs. No doubt that is one of the major reasons why we had the system during the war years, although, sadly, it was abandoned thereafter. There was also, of course, a half-hearted experiment with single summer time between 1968 and 1971.
Nor is this some wicked attempt by our European colleagues to erode the British way of life. I yield to no one in my Euro-scepticism. The plain truth is that Europe is about to follow our lead. In a recently published EC directive, it is proposed that our European friends should change their clocks at the same time as Britain—at the end of October. Harmonising of the clock change should abolish the anomaly that, for a period in October each year, we are on the same time as the rest of Europe, causing inevitable chaos for airports, and so on.
I firmly believe that double summer time is an idea whose time has finally come. In the past, there has been some opposition from certain sections of the community, especially in Scotland. However, on this occasion, that opposition is more muted. If we have a vote today, I suspect that the result will be somewhat exaggerated because it happens to fall on the same day as Scottish questions.
The Policy Studies Institute found that there would be an overall reduction of about 60 deaths and serious injuries in Scotland each year, which is proportionately greater than the reduction for England and Wales. Traditionally, farmers have had their reservations about the proposal, as have builders. According to a recent report in The Independent on Sunday, opinion in all nine regions of the National Farmers Union is moving in favour of my proposal.
The building industry, farmers and others could follow the lead of Scandinavia by starting work an hour later in the

winter months only to limit any problems caused by darker mornings. As Mary James, a dairy farmer near Bristol, was quoted as saying:
The new time system would be an inconvenience, but it would not kill anyone—it could save someone's life, which is what is most important.
A Gallup survey recently found that 68 per cent. of people were in favour of the change and that the figure in England and Wales was 73 per cent.
The proposal is sponsored by various organisations such as the BTA, the ETB, Age Concern, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Police Federation, the Sports Council, the ADC and the BMA. I am pleased to have support from both Government and Opposition Members in presenting my Bill.
The proposal contained in the Bill has an irresistible momentum behind it. As the EC has made up its mind about the harmonisation of clocks, there is no good reason for further delay. I hope that the Government will adopt my Bill and that we will see its rapid progress on to the statute book. The matter has been discussed for years. The time for action is now. In the words of the Daylight Extra campaign, "It's about time." Indeed, it is. I commend ray Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Hain: I wish briefly to state the strong objections to the Bill which have been skated over by the promoter, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). Many of my hon. Friends from Scotland have voiced their objections, especially my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has pointed out that the sun would not rise until 10 am in many parts of Scotland. A Government survey in 1971 showed that 61 per cent. of Scots opposed the reform, with only 6 per cent. being in favour of it.
My primary objective is to speak on behalf of Post Office workers. I do so as a sponsored Member of Parliament representing the Union of Communication Workers, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey). I can say on good authority that Postman Pat and Postman Dai are upset about the proposed change. If they are upset, I am sure that Postman Jock is absolutely livid.
There are between 80,000 and 90,000 delivery postmen and women. Most of them must be out the door at 7 o'clock in the morning. Scottish postmen and women will need to deliver in the dark for more than three hours if this proposed reform goes through. Therefore, if the change is made, they will be disproportionately penalised, together with farmers, milk deliverers and construction workers who will bear the consequences of the increased accidents that will result from a change that will bring about increased darkness while they work.
During the 1968–71 experiment in reforming the hours along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the number of accidents to postal workers more than doubled. He did not mention that. Before British standard time was introduced in 1968, between the months of September and February between the hours of 7 am and 9 am there were 1,104 accidents to postal workers. After the change, there were 2,287 accidents. In other words, the figure nearly doubled; and in the 23 years since the experiment road traffic in the United Kingdom has also doubled.
Even if one assumed that the accident ratio to postmen and women would remain the same, a further 2,300 accidents would still be likely to happen to them each year, which means that nearly 5,000, or 6 per cent., of all delivery postmen and women would be so affected. It is absolutely vital to take that into account when the reform is considered, because Department of Transport evidence shows that accidents in the dark are twice as likely to kill pedestrians. In the early hours, especially in Scotland, pedestrians will include many schoolchildren.
The Department of Transport figures also show that 83 per cent. of accidents occur in darkness. Despite the fact that there is less traffic in the winter months, road casualties increased by 13 per cent. at the time that the Department of Transport investigation was carried out in 1986.
Postmen and women already face problems with crime which would massively increase during the dark hours that they have to go about their work. There are already many no-go areas where they refuse to deliver because they are the subject of muggings and attacks, and that problem would undoubtedly increase. In addition, they would have to work through dark mornings in the winter months, and with the poorer lighting they would be unable to read the addresses on envelopes as easily, slowing down their work. Bad paving and bad roads would also pose a greater problem and as a result their efficiency and safety would be impaired. In general, the change would have a deleterious effect on the quality of service provided by Royal Mail workers.
Another serious concern is that people who work during the dark, early morning hours suffer from decreased alertness. Research by doctors shows that instances of lapses in drivers' attention increase massively between the hours of midnight and dawn and as a result the number of accidents increases.
It is important to note that it is not merely delivery postmen and women, milk delivery workers, construction workers and farmers who would suffer; 70,000 postmen and women also perform night duties. If the change is made, they will have to go to and from work in darkness.
In conclusion, I must refer to the report by the Policy Studies Institute, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He forgot to mention that the report made only glancing reference to the impact on postal workers. On page 17, it states that postal workers' lives would be made "more difficult." On page 35, it also states that the postal service would suffer
some discomforts and possibly diseconomies".
But it ignores the fact that the number of accidents doubled when the change was last introduced between 1968 and 1971. Hon. Members who wish to support the change must remember that that experiment was hastily dropped as a result of a number of Scottish schoolchildren being killed on the way to school.
My opposition to the Bill is based not simply on self-interest on the part of postmen and women, although we are entitled to take that into account, but on the interests of all people who are out and about in the early hours.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 86

Divison No. 371]
[3.48


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Alexander, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashby, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Austin-Walker, John
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Bayley, Hugh
Jenkin, Bernard


Bell, Stuart
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Benton, Joe
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Betts, Clive
Keen, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Butler, Peter
Khabra, Piara S.


Butterfill, John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Livingstone, Ken


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Marland, Paul


Churchill, Mr
Marlow, Tony


Clappison, James
Martlew, Eric


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Michael, Alun


Coffey, Ann
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Colvin, Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Congdon, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Olner, William


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Duncan, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Durant, Sir Anthony
Radice, Giles


Eastham, Ken
Rathbone, Tim


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rendel, David


Enright, Derek
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Faber, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fabricant, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Spink, Dr Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Steinberg, Gerry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sykes, John


Fisher, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Thumham, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


Fry, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Gale, Roger
Watts, John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Whitney, Ray


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Whittingdale, John


Gordon, Mildred
Wicks, Malcolm


Gorst, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wilson, Brian


Hannam, Sir John
Wright, Dr Tony


Hanson, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hargreaves, Andrew



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Haselhurst, Alan
Mrs. Jacqui Cait and


Hawkins, Nick
Mr. Matthew Banks.


Heppell, John





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ashton, Joe
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kirkwood, Archy






Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maginnis, Ken
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Welsh, Andrew


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Porter, David (Waveney)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Phil Gallic and


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. David Trimble.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Barry Field, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Dr. Tony Wright, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. David Willetts, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Matthew Banks and Mr. Nick Hawkins.

SUMMER TIME (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nigel Waterson accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Summer Time Act 1972; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 October and to be printed. [Bill 258].

Early-day Motion 1726

4 pm

Mr. Rod Richards: I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on a matter that has caused concern to my constituents and me. I wish to refer you to early-day motion 1726 on Benzodiazepine (Tranquilisers) Claims and Legal Aid. The sponsor of the early-day motion was the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I have notified him by letter that I would raise this matter, but I see that he is not in his place. My name appeared among the first six sponsors of the early-day motion. The Table Office told me by letter that the hon. Member for Brent, South took those names to the Table Office.
I did not give the hon. Member permission to use my name in that way, nor did he seek my permission to do so. How can an Opposition Member go to the Table Office and claim to have the support of a Conservative Member and, furthermore, take with him a document purporting to have my signature on it?
Early-day motions are read widely in the House and outside and if Members are allowed to get away with such activity it undermines that valued and valuable barometer of Back-Bench opinion.

Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern. It is the first intimation that I have had of the matter. I had no idea that he was about to raise it. If he will allow me, I shall look into it thoroughly, have it investigated, and be in touch with him.

Opposition Day

19TH ALLOTTED DAY

Coal Industry

Madam Speaker: In view of the number of Members seeking to take part in the debate on the coal industry, I have had to limit speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm to 10 minutes.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House notes that not one extra contract for coal has been obtained from the electricity generating companies as a result of Her Majesty's Government's White Paper, The Prospects for Coal; deplores the abject failure of ministers to fulfil their promise to use their best endeavours to carve out a wider market for coal; is concerned by the warning of the Chairman of British Coal that all ten remaining pits which were reprieved in March are now at risk again; observes that all of these pits have many years of coal reserves and most of them are already producing coal at a price competitive with imports; regrets that closure of these pits will destroy the economies of the coalfield communities, increase the redundancy costs to the taxpayer, and switch electricity generation to sources that will be more expensive to the consumer; and calls upon the Government to avert a further round of pit closures by implementing those recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee in its Report on British Energy Policy which would ensure fair competition for coal against other fuels and secure a wider market for coal.
I am glad to see that the President of the Board of Trade is in his place for this debate. He will acknowledge that there could be no more fitting debate in which to welcome him back than one on the future of the coal industry. As he will recognise, the single biggest impact that he has made on public consciousness in his period in office as President was his announcement, a year ago, of the closure of 31 pits. He is on record as saying that in the following six months the greatest part of his effort was in drafting the White Paper. The past six months have been marked by the unravelling failure of that White Paper. We meet today without a single one of those 31 pits on the hit list last October having a secure future.
I say the "failure" of that White Paper to be charitable, because to assume that the President's strategy in the White Paper has failed is to do the Government the justice of believing that they seriously expected it to work and that they are as concerned as we are that the White Paper has failed. I doubt that is the case. I do not believe that the Government are the least bit surprised that it has failed.
If our motion were to be brutal, it would make the accusation not of failure but of fraud—fraud on the miners who were asked to improve their productivity, to test the market, and who produced a heroic improvement in productivity, only to find that it made no difference to the future of their pits; fraud on the nation, which was assured that the Government had listened to public outrage and scaled down the closure programme, only to find that the only thing that had changed was not the number of pits to be closed but the timetable for the closure of those same pits; and fraud on the Government's own Back Benchers, who voted for the White Paper in the belief that it would save 12 pits, only to find that it paved the way for the closure of those pits.
The President's White Paper did not save a single miner's job, and it was not intended to do so. The only jobs that the White Paper was devised to save were those of the President and of his Minister for Energy. That is what it was all about. While they have kept their jobs, half the miners employed when we debated the issue last October have lost their jobs.
In our exchanges with the Minister last week, he took credit for a £1 billion subsidy to the coal industry. That £1 billion this year is not a subsidy. No operating grant has been paid to British Coal for 10 years. The overwhelming proportion of that £1 billion is accounted for by redundancy payments to the 20,000 miners who have gone on the dole—and more are about to go on the dole.
Two weeks ago, the chairman of British Coal said that he was pessimistic about the future of the 10 market-testing pits—so he expects a further round of closures. Last week, the Minister for Energy made a statement on closure procedures and redundancy terms—so he expects a further round of closures. The House needs to know how many pits the Minister expects to close. He must have discussed that matter with British Coal before he came to the House last week. He certainly discussed the timetable of the closures, which is why he changed the deadline for redundancy terms. Will the Minister discuss with the House the matters that he has discussed with British Coal? Will he tell us how many pits he expects to close by the revised deadline?
I will cheerfully give way to the Minister if he will answer the question that he consistently ducked when he made his statement last week. How many more pits will close—six, 10, 12 or 15? Will he say how many more pits will go by next April?

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: At the moment, my net is set to catch not the sprats but the shark.
The words "modesty" and "reticence" do not leap to one's mind in association with the Minister for Energy, and I do not believe that he is suffering from stage fright. I assure the Minister that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will give him a fair hearing. He has only to stand at the Dispatch Box and say how many pits British Coal advised him that it wants to close.
I will try to jog the Minister's memory. Lists circulating in British Coal show who is for the chop. The Coalfield Communities Campaign published that list last Tuesday. It shows that nine pits now face closure and that a further three pits will be taken out of production and mothballed —12 in all. Does that help to jog the Minister's memory? Does that figure ring any bells at the back of his mind, or is it wildly wrong? Would he like to correct the record and tell the House how many fewer pits or how many more pits he now expects to close?
The silent fit seems to have come upon the Minister again. Granted, the question of how many pits will close is an awkward one. The Minister does not want to talk about that subject. Let us take something that he does like to talk about—privatisation.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Cook: Not to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the Minister if he chooses to intervene. The House wants to hear from the Minister, because it is he who must answer on those figures.
A fortnight ago, the Minister said that privatisation would achieve the largest economically viable coal mining industry. As privatisation of the electricity industry created the problem for pits, it is difficult to believe that privatisation will provide the solution, but we shall debate privatisation when the Minister gets around to introducing a Bill on the subject.
In the meantime, let us be charitable—let us take him at his word and accept that he believes that privatisation will achieve the largest economically viable coal ruining industry. How large will that industry be? How many pits will survive to privatisation? That is not a matter for British Coal. It is matter for the Minister who presents the Bill to privatise the pits.
How many pits will be left to privatise? Somebody in the Minister's Department knows. Somebody told The Times yesterday that "Ministers believe" that 20 pits will survive. The Times knows that 20 pits will survive because it quotes a "senior industry Department source". I wonder whether we have a senior industry Department source in the Chamber today. If that senior industry Department source is sitting opposite us, will he confirm whether The Times is right, or could that source correct the record and give a different figure? I can tell the House what is meant by the survival of 20 pits. It means that 10 pits will close —presumably, the 10 remaining of those that were reprieved last March.
Let us be clear about how good those pits are and about how much Britain would lose if they shut. First, we would lose a quarter of accessible coal reserves. None of those pits is near exhaustion. Any pit remotely near exhaustion has been shut down in the past 12 months. The average future life of the coal reserves at each of those pits is 16 years. Two of them have reserves that would last 30 years. Those are not my figures but Government figures taken from Boyds' report, which was produced during the coal review. Between them, the 10 pits have 165 years of life left in them. That is the scale of coal production that we shall be writing off if we shut those pits—coal reserves that would provide a secure, strategic energy resource that the nation will need in the next century.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Member in the hope that he will answer the question that I put to the Minister: how many pits does he expect will close?

Mr. Evans: How many of the 277 pits that were closed in the six years to 1970 under a Labour Government had reserves that were totally exhausted?

Mr. Cook: I shall give the hon. Gentleman figures for comparison. Under the Labour Government of the 1960s, output in the coal industry fell by a quarter. Output has fallen by 60 per cent. under this Government. Under the Labour Government of the 1960s, jobs in the coal industry fell by a third. Under this Government, jobs in the coal industry have fallen by 90 per cent. The Labour Government of the 1960s shut 40 per cent. of the pits. This Government have shut 85 per cent. of the pits that existed

in 1979. Those are the records for the hon. Gentleman to compare. The figures show the deplorable record of this Administration.
The question asked by the hon. Gentleman has been asked in every debate. The hon. Gentleman may have got it from a Conservative Central Office brief, but he need not pride himself on it being an original question. I say to him and to others who attended clutching that brief that I do not for one moment understand what they imagine miners facing redundancy will think is achieved by historic 30 or 40-year-old comparisons, which in any case rebound on the Government.
It is not only that these pits have such long coal reserves; they also have produced increasingly cheap coal.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No.
The White Paper promises a subsidy, which would allow time within which the price of our coal could be reduced to match that of imports. I have to tell the Minister that the 10 pits that are now threatened with closure are well on the way towards meeting the price of imports, without a penny of his subsidy. In the past month, the import price from the three main countries from which we import coal has been between £1.15 and £1.17 per gigajoule. In the past month, coal from six of the 10 pits has been produced at between 99p and £1.23 per gigajoule, which is comparable with the price of imported coal. I heard the Minister say this morning on the radio that he does not like my figures and that the calculations are wrong. The figures came from pits, and the figures for imports came from Customs and Excise, but the Minister does not like my figures. I can understand why, because they explode his case.
There is another way of measuring the viability of those pits. It is a measure that was chosen by the Government's advisers. The Boyds report produced a benchmark price for the 10 pits in its report to the Government; it was a benchmark price for 1995–96 that would measure whether those pits could be financially viable.
Eight of the 10 pits most at risk are already below that benchmark price, two years ahead of schedule. That is a remarkable achievement for all the people who work in those pits and who now face redundancy. I heard also on the same radio programme that today the Government have handed out 93 charter marks to institutions and bodies in the public sector that have achieved more output with no increase in costs. What about a charter mark for those 10 pits, which have achieved more output with a reduction in costs? Will they get a charter mark for that achievement? Will they even be thanked for that achievement? No, the workers will be sacked for that achievement as though it did not matter what productivity gains they had made. In that—and I give him this—the Minister is right. The market was rigged by his predecessors to squeeze coal out even when it is competitive.
I heard the Minister complain this morning that coal is more expensive than other fuels. Therefore, let us go through the figures. The current contract between British Coal and the generators provides for coal delivered at 1.33 per gigajoule. Seven of the 10 pits are producing coal below their contract price, but let us stick with that figure. The Select Committee calculated that the generators would produce electricity at 1.48p per kWh. That is less than we


paid in the contracts for the new gas power stations, which will produce electricity at 2.5p to 2.8p per kWh. That is less than the contracts that we have made to purchase imported electricity from France, at more than 3p per kWh. It is much less than Nuclear Electric would need to recover the costs at Sizewell, at some 4p per kWh. British Coal is now offering its coal for sale at an even lower price than £1.33 per gigajoule.
In the previous debate about the coal industry, after allowing for the subsidy promised in the White Paper, I told the House that British Coal was offering its coal for sale at 93p per gigajoule. At that price, coal could produce electricity at half the contract price of the new gas stations and as cheaply as Nuclear Electric could produce electricity from Sizewell, even if we gave it Sizewell free of any capital cost. Since that debate in July when I quoted those figures, British Coal has made a fresh offer to the generators—an even lower price—that could produce even cheaper electricity, yet still the generators will not buy it. I shall pose the question which I posed in July, but which went unanswered then. Why will the generators not buy a single extra bag of such cheap coal when they can produce electricity more cheaply than from any other source?

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way when I have finished this passage.
Neither Minister attempted to answer that question in July. That was not because of ignorance on their part. It was the fruit of wisdom. They know how damning the answer would be. They know that the fact that the generators will not buy coal when it can produce the cheapest electricity is the final proof that the market that they have created is rigged against coal.

Mr. Richards: If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative energy policy, and if that policy had been introduced in April last year—if the Labour party had won the general election—will he tell the House what proportion of Britain's energy needs would have been met by coal in the year 2000?

Mr. Cook: The Government cannot tell us what proportion of our energy needs will be met by coal then, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question with respect to the pits that we are discussing. If we had won that general election, we would immediately have taken steps to end the rigging of the market, and I am confident that, given a fair opportunity to compete, British Coal could keep the market, which in turn would keep open all the pits currently producing.
Pits that have the reserves and pits that can produce at the price that would meet the needs of consumers for cheap electricity would thus be in production. That is the difference between what would have happened had we won and what did happen under the Tories.

Mr. James Paice: rose—

Mr. Cook: Some industrialists who may, for all I know, have supported the Conservatives in the general election last April view with incomprehension a market that

encouraged the expansion of gas, of nuclear and of French imports—all at the expense of a contraction of coal, which provides the best value for money.
In our last debate on this subject I quoted ICI as asking how anyone could rationalise the economic behaviour of the generators. On Monday, the same question was asked again in a different form in a letter to the Financial Times from the energy intensive users group. On behalf of the major industrial users of electricity, the letter said:
there is a growing surplus of coal-fired electricity generation capacity. The marginal cost of base-load electricity generation on this capacity is less than 1.5p/kwh, yet new generation capacity costing about 2.8p/kwh is being approved, built and prospering within the 'market."'
The letter asks how that is possible.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what the noble Lord Wakeham said in another place on 20 October last year? He said:
as I made clear to the Energy Select Committee in another place in January—and I put it absolutely crudely so that there was no doubt about it—if the regional electricity companies have an interest in a gas-fired power station which is more expensive than electricity they can buy from another source, in my judgment they are in breach of their licence conditions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 673.]
Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman astutely goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that he will remember that argument at 10 pm. His point is a fair one: the Government have allowed sweetheart contracts to be signed between the electricity companies and new gas power stations, most of which the former own themselves. In the contracts, the gas-fired power stations are guaranteed a price for all their output, however efficient they may be. That is not a market in competition. It is a cartel which is closing the doors on Britain's pits.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has raised an aspect which helpfully leads me to my next point. Lord Wakeham had a hand in creating the market which is now causing the problem.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Cook: I have already given way several times.
I know that the President did not set up the rigged market. The person who presided over the privatisation of the electricity market is no longer with us—she is pursuing a second career in the book trade. A most extraordinary thing has happened since our last debate—something I never expected. The noble Lady has shown remorse. She has written to the Minister expressing her concern at pit closures and asking him to take action to avert them.
I know that the President of the Board of Trade has had his difficulties with the noble Lady in the past. However, they are both now at a mature stage—either in, or approaching, the memoirs stage of life. Surely this is the time to sink old differences. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could find at least one common cause with the noble Lady. Let me be a peacemaker between them. If the architect of the rigged market can recognise that it is unjust to coal, surely he is now free to say, "Yes, it was a load of cobblers. I an not going to go on defending what she created."
Once the President takes that liberating step, there are so many more opportunities that are open to him—opportunities to end the rigged market—all of which were in the Select Committee recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman could have accepted the Committee's request


for careful consideration of any new gas-fired power stations. Instead, he and the Minister go on approving even more such stations. Two more have been approved since the House last debated the matter. Another 2 GW of production has been added to the generating capacity, equivalent to the output of two pits that will shut when the stations come on stream. Indeed, so remarkable is the dash for gas that Britain now accounts for 43 per cent. of the total orders for gas-fired power stations in the world. We have 2.5 per cent. of the world's generating capacity and we account for 43 per cent. of the orders for gas-fired power stations—this in an island that is built on coal. The most ludicrous feature is that, while the price of coal is coming down, the price of gas is going up.
The President could have accepted the Select Committee's recommendation to ring-fence the nuclear levy. That would have meant that the levy could be used only for future decommissioning costs, and not as a subsidy to present operating costs. I see in this week's newspapers that the Government expect that the output of nuclear power stations will increase. I am not at all surprised that an increase in output is expected. The present arrangement provides a subsidy to nuclear power so large that, if it went to coal, British Coal could provide half the coal to the power stations free of any charge.

Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: This is the last time I will give way.

Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how Britain could meet the reductions in carbon monoxide emissions to which we are committed, and which his party demands, if we were to maintain our coal-fired capacity and not expand nuclear power?

Mr. Cook: I can tell the hon. Gentleman without the slightest difficulty. I would fit to Britain's coal-fired power stations the technology for clean coal burn which has been developed in Britain and is currently fitted elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much would it cost?") Hon. Members ask how much it would cost. The figures are laid out in the Select Committee report, which made it clear that, even with clean coal technology, existing coal power stations are competitive with new gas-fired power stations.

Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman may not have liked it, but that was the reply. I told the hon. Gentleman that that would be the last occasion on which I would give way.
The President could have taken a third course. He could have acted upon his own promise in the White Paper to consult the generators over stocks as a matter of urgency. That was six months ago, when we were promised those consultations as a matter of urgency.
I was shadow health spokesman long enough to know that urgency does not mean to Ministers what it means to many other people. Urgent cases are often left on waiting lists for six months. However, this is not something that I expected would be put at the bottom of the waiting list for the attention of Ministers.
The Government can act urgently on the matter of stocks when they want to do so. When the Minister speaks, he could perhaps say whether it was true that in 1990, under the powers contained in the Electricity Act 1989, Lord Wakeham wrote to the generators requiring them to

keep 27 million tonnes of coal stocks as an insurance against a miners' strike. If the noble Lord found it proper to use those powers to give a direction that was designed to keep miners off a picket line in 1990, why cannot the Government find it proper to use those directions to keep miners off the dole queues in 1993? The generators may get a couple of years' supply of cheap coal while they run down the stocks, but that is all they will get—for the pits that shut in those couple of years when the orders dry up will stay shut, flooded and with the roof fallen in. The savings from running down the stocks will be temporary, but the cost to Britain's coalfields will be permanent.
Lastly, if the President were looking for ways of remedying the rigged market, he could have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee that imports of French electricity should be conditional on the access of British electricity to other countries over the French grid. Instead, we continue to import French electricity. The French still do not import any electricity from us. They still will not give us access over their grid to countries such as Spain which are desperate to buy our electricity. It is six months since the White Paper—

Mr. Riddick: The Labour Government made the agreement with France.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has raised another of the questions that have been raised in every one of our debates on the matter.

Mr. Riddick: Answer, then.

Mr. Cook: The answer is exactly the same as on every previous occasion. The trade across the channel was revolutionised by the decision of the British Government to give the French the subsidy that we pay to our nuclear industry whether or not their electricity comes from nuclear power stations. The previous Labour Government never thought that any Government would be daft enough to offer to subsidise the imports from France. In fairness to the French, I rather suspect that the French Government never imagined that it would happen either. The French must now think that we are mad. The rest of Europe must think that we are mad to close the most efficient pits in Europe.
On output per man hour, British pits are a quarter more efficient than French pits, a third more efficient than German pits and twice as efficient as Spanish pits. The Germans are providing a subsidy to keep open pits that provide coal at twice the price of coal produced by the pits that we threaten to shut down. As a result, next year, Britain may produce less coal than the smaller German coalfield even though it has the largest coal reserves in Europe.
Last week, I predicted that under present plans, if the pits close, the number of mining jobs would fall to about 10,000 by next April. I read in The Times that that "senior industry Department source" also expects the number of jobs in the industry to fall to 10,000. At 10,000 jobs, there will be one miner for every 18 accountants in Britain working on the bankruptcy of companies; one miner for every three economists in Britain charting the decline of the British economy; one miner for every four debt collectors policing the personal debt mountain created by the Government's policies.
With 10,000 jobs in the pits, there will be fewer people working in the pits than the 11,000 civil servants working


in the Department of Trade and Industry. I have no doubt that all the DTI civil servants do a useful job. I have no doubt that none of them would dream of going down a mine. But the President has got his priorities badly wrong when we end up with more people working in his Department than in one of the key industries sponsored by him.
I have met many of the men who will lose their jobs in the next few months. Overwhelmingly, they are aged between 25 and 35. They have young families—something on which the party that prides itself on being the party of the family might wish to reflect. They mostly have mortgages because they were encouraged by the Government to be part of a property-owning democracy. With only a couple of exceptions, the 10 pits which are most likely to close are in areas where unemployment is above average. Male unemployment in the other eight areas is between 15 and 20 per cent.
Once those miners are sacked, they may not get another job for a long time. Redundancy money goes very quickly when one has a family to support and no job to support them with. The best chance of a future for those miners is to give their pits a future, to keep the pits working to produce coal that provides a secure, efficient source of energy for Britain. This may be the last chance for the House to do that.
Some Conservative Members know that what the Government are doing is wrong because it does not make financial sense, it damages the national interest and it is unjust to those miners.
All it will take is for a handful of Conservative Members to join us in the Lobbies tonight. Their vote is their responsibility—it is not the responsibility of the Ministers who have dreamed up the policy, or of the Whips who will be standing at the doors—and they must decide which door to go through. I beg them to use their votes to keep Britain's coalfields working, and to keep those young men at work in those pits.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'reaffirms its approval for the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review" (Cm 2235) which accepted the principal recommendations of the Report by the Trade and Industry Committee "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal" (HC 237) and in particular the offer of a transitional subsidy for additional sales of United Kingdom underground coal for electricity generation; welcomes the help provided by the Government to coal field communities affected by closures; welcomes the offer of subsidy, subject to EC clearance, to British Coal, for coal from the Ellington colliery; welcomes the fact that British Coal have offered to the private sector the pits that they do not themselves wish to keep in production; welcomes the Government's commitment that the present high standards of safety achieved by British Coal be maintained or improved; and welcomes the Government's intention to bring forward as soon as parliamentary time allows the legislation necessary to privatise British Coal since the best future for the coal industry lies in the private sector.'.
I shall start by addressing the important issue of safety, to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not refer. All hon. Members are determined to maintain and improve safety standards in the mining industry. That is our priority, and it should not divide us on party-political grounds. I pay tribute—particularly with you in the Chair,

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —to the safety record of the coal mining industry. British Coal's overall accident rate has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. since 1985, as a result of many years of consistent effort and commitment by management and employees.

Mr. Eric Clarke: And the trade unions.

Mr. Eggar: The Health and Safety Executive and its mines inspectorate have also played a critical role—as, indeed, have the trade unions. One should never be complacent about safety standards, but we can all be proud that Britain's coal mining industry has one of the best safety records in the world.
In planning for privatisation, the Government are determined to ensure that the right framework is in place to maintain or improve that fine safety tradition. With that in mind, I wrote to Sir John Cullen, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, in May last year to ask for the commission's advice on the safety implications of privatisation. The interim reply that Sir John sent me last year was placed in the Library.
More recently, I again wrote to Sir John to update him on our privatisation proposals in the light of the White Paper on the prospects for coal. I received the commission's full and considered advice on Monday of this week. As I promised the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) last year, I am making that advice public. It is now available in the Library and in the Vote Office.
The commission's advice is based on five key principles, which it believes should continue to apply after privatisation. The first principle is that employers have the responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of their employees and others affected by their operations. The second is that the commission should continue to be the health and safety regulatory body for the coal industry, and the Health and Safety Executive the enforcement authority. The third is that the framework of legislation must be sufficiently robust to command the continued confidence of the industry and to ensure that health and safety standards are maintained or improved. The fourth is that everyone who works in the industry should have equal protection under the health and safety laws, irrespective of the size of the mine in which they work. The fifth is that the commitment of all employers and employees will be of fundamental importance.
The commission's advice is that there is already a comprehensive and well-tested framework of law governing the mining industry, with a rigorous inspection and enforcement regime. The commission has been in the process of renewing that framework of mining safety legislation since 1983. That is work that it would have undertaken irrespective of the Government's privatisation proposals. The commission believes that it will make an important contribution to ensuring that the statutory framework is adequate to the demands of a privatised industry. A number of those measures have now been implemented after full consultation by the commission.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a while, I will gladly give way later.
The commission has also taken steps to ensure that the best practice in British Coal's existing owners' instructions


continues to be applied throughout the industry. The work to achieve that is now largely completed. Draft regulations were laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 1 October to give legal status to the requirements of 10 of British Coal's safety instructions. The commission does not propose to give the instructions legal status where it is satisfied that there is already a clear legal duty on employers, or where inspectors have full statutory authority to ensure that standards are maintained.
The commission has also recommended that there should continue to be a national mines rescue service. The commission will consult widely about the draft regulations.
I should like to express my thanks to the Health and Safety Commission and to the Health and Safety Executive for that advice and for the extensive work that has been, and will continue to be, undertaken. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the Government fully accept the advice that has been submitted to them by the commission.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister deal with two matters? Will he confirm that yesterday the Government—apparently with the support and, they claim, the encouragement of the Health and Safety Commission; that self-same commission which is so concerned to secure consensus within the industry about safety—forced through, against the wishes of the bulk of the people who work in the industry, changes in the rules? Is not it the first time this century that mine safety regulations have been pushed through against the objections of the people working down the mines?
Secondly, does not what the Minister said today about the arrangements that the Health and Safety Commission and British Coal are making for the rules below ground clash with what his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said in yesterday's debate?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise when he reads the paper—I think that I have written to him, giving him the full details of it—it does not clash. Secondly, with regard to his attempts to repeat the slur on the Health and Safety Commission which he perpetrated last night, the trade union representatives did not oppose the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations package. They did not ask for a vote on the package and I am informed that, with regard to the advice which was sent to me and which arrived on Monday, the trade union representatives attended the relevant meetings, accepted the advice, passed it on to me and did not oppose that advice or ask for a vote about it. There has, therefore, been full consultation about the package.
I have done exactly what the hon. Gentleman asked me to do in his written question almost a year ago. I have made that advice publicly available within about 36 hours of receiving it. It is now in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. I am not sure what extra action the hon. Gentleman wishes me to take.

Mr. Dobson: If what the Minister is saying is true, is he challenging the minutes of the Health and Safety Commission, which clearly record that the Trades Union Congress representatives said that they believed that the changes that were pushed through yesterday would not maintain or improve safety underground? Do not those minutes also record that the local authorities' representative expressed similar reservations?

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman still seems to be stuck on the debate yesterday. The announcement that I made today, which is important because it relates to advice which has only just been received, and which it is appropriate that I should bring to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, only relates to the MASHAM package in the most incidental way. He has already received from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who answered for the Government yesterday, the answer to the points that he mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday.

Mr. Peter Hardy: During the past few months, the Minister has frequently appeared on television to defend the Government's safety regulation proposals —which expunge the statutory capacity of the colliery deputy, who ensures that precedence and priorities for safety persist in the pits—on the ground that the proposals represent a considerable improvement because everyone who goes down the pit will be made responsible for safety instead.
Who would have the statutory capacity on the coal face, in the face of an immediate hazard, to stop the job? Would people have to rely on a system of finding someone to report the peril to?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman, whose association with NACODS is well known and who has been a regular contributor to our debates on safety matters for many years, explored that matter in considerable detail yesterday. The MASHAM package puts a clear obligation on all members of management of the mines to put the highest priority on health and safety matters. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that under the existing regulations—pre-MASHAM regulations—the safety requirements do not apply outside the coal face. I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that, at least, is a major step forward in terms of the new recommendations made by MASHAM, even if he does not accept other features of the new regime.
Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Clackmannari (Mr. O'Neill), the Opposition spokesman on energy matters, expressed surprise from the Dispatch Box that the modified colliery review procedure involved a review of all British Coal's pits. He expressed astonishment that when he rang British Coal it had confirmed that all the pits were going into the review. I think that he simply does not understand the modified colliery review procedure. It might be helpful if I explained exactly how it worked.
The procedure was agreed between British Coal and the unions more than 20 years ago; it has been used virtually uninterrupted since the early 1970s. It is well known and well understood throughout the industry. I must emphasise that, ever since 1972, the procedure has provided for the performance and prospects of all collieries to be reviewed at local level on a quarterly basis at general review meetings.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minsister aware that the colliery at which I worked, Bates colliery in Blyth Valley, went through the colliery review procedures and had a stay of execution of two years, but was still closed, and that many other collieries before it that had a stay of execution were still closed? I am entitled to say that the document which the Minister has on the review procedure is not worth the paper that it is written on.

Mr. Eggar: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he does not appear to be aware that the Trade and Industry Select Committee recommended that the modified colliery review procedure should be followed. It is no good his waving his hands and disowning the Select Committee —it was, after all, compéred by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks early-day motion 1143, because that motion, which was signed by 117 Opposition Members, called for the early reesumption of the modified colliery review procedure. It was not just Back-Bench mavericks who signed it; no fewer than 20 Members of the Opposition Front Bench signed that early-day motion. Not only did the Opposition spokesman expose his ignorance, but he appeared to ignore the recommendation of the Select Committee and the views of more than 110 of his colleagues in the same party.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that what is causing uncertainty, anxiety and deep distress throughout the coalfields is that pits that have appeared on no list whatsoever, such as Littleton in my constituency, are the subject of letters from the chairman of British Coal, saying that he cannot necessarily guarantee their future for even a few months? Does my hon. Friend accept that to have in charge of British Coal someone who does not believe in the industry and who is, on any standards, a half-hearted, pessimistic salesman does no good to the industry?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend made clear last week his views about the chairman and I have replied to him forthrightly. The chairman is doing a difficult job with considerable care and fortitude. My hon. Friend talked about the modified colliery review procedure, Of course, as I have already said, every pit goes into that procedure. That has been the position since the early 1970s and it will be no surprise to anybody who knows about that procedure that that will continue now that it is being resumed by British Coal.

Mr. Churchill: In the past, how many pits have gone through the modified colliery review procedure and come out with any prospect of survival?

Mr. Eggar: All pits go into either the colliery review procedure or, since 1985, the modified colliery review procedure. The process involves, first, a general review meeting and then, sometimes, reconvened meetings that look at particular pits. This is a matter for British Coal, but I think that I am right in saying that some pits have reached the stage of the reconvened meeting and it has then been agreed that the pit can continue in operation to be reassessed on the general quarterly basis by the general review meeting. That is the established procedure and, as I understand it, it is one which British Coal will continue to follow.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I think that the Minister was trying to say that no pits have come out of the review procedure with any prospect of survival.
No matter how worthless the procedure may be, last year when the Government, in collusion with British Coal, tried to close the collieries, they did so without using that procedure. It was for that reason that we called for it to be employed. It took a court decision to force the Government to adopt the procedure. That is why I asked last week whether the Government were using the procedure for all

the collieries and, therefore, creating uncertainty across all the coalfields. That is what they have done. That is why we asked last week about the significance of British Coal's resumption of the colliery review procedure. Prior to the court decision, it had shown complete and utter indifference to honouring the formal agreements to which the court forced it to return.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman needs to have words with the 100 or so Labour Members who urged the resumption of the modified colliery review procedure. Are Opposition Front-Bench Members in favour of the procedure?

Mr. O'Neill: If it is the only thing that is available as an option instead of closure, we are in favour of it. However, we are under no illusions about it, since, in the past, it has given nothing to the colliers of this country.

Mr. Eggar: If Opposition Front-Bench Members are in favour of the review procedure, why are they critical of its resumption and why have they been adopting thoroughly irresponsible scaremongering about the future of large numbers of pits? The hon. Member for Clackmannan cannot go on having it both ways.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister began his speech with an announcement about health and safety and is now trying to clarify the modified colliery review procedure. The House and the country would rather he made an announcement or provided clarification on a much more important issue—how many pits do the Government intend to ensure remain open and what is the minimum size of the coal industry that the Government regard as viable? Will the Minister make either an announcement or clarify that core issue?

Mr. Eggar: I asked the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his party a question some months ago. The hon. Gentleman believes that the best way of generating electricity is with the construction of windmills. It would take so many windmills that 45 per cent. of the country would be covered by them. How many pits does he think would survive if that policy were to be adopted?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey obviously did not pay attention to the answers that I gave in the House last Wednesday. I made it clear that the modified colliery review procedure was being followed by British Coal and that, because that procedure was followed, British Coal was consulting the unions. I made it clear that it was for British Coal to make decisions about the future of collieries in the light of all the information on the market and that it was not and should not be a matter for the Government.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
The hon. Member for Livingston has made a great deal of the information that he released to the press yesterday. In that information, he sought to claim that the various pits that he listed were, somehow, competitive. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he must have words with his researchers. It is an abuse of the Short money to come up with such shoddy workmanship.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the United Kingdom coal report. There is no such publication. He produced figures for import prices of coal which are too high. The


hon. Gentleman also appears to be totally unaware of the fact that there are different coals at different prices in the figures that he has quoted. Also, when he seeks to compare the import prices with the prices for the United Kingdom pits, he ignores the transport costs inside the United Kingdom. Above all, the hon. Gentleman ignores the basic fact that it does not matter about the price of imports or the price of production at the pits that he has cited, because if there is no market for the coal, British Coal has difficulty in selling it at any price. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have 45 million tonnes of coal in stock at pitheads and at the generating stations.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Minister now recognises that the problem is that the generators will not buy coal from whatever source, why, six months ago, did he and the President of the Board of Trade practise a fraud on the House by saying that they could solve the problem of the pits by bringing the price down to the level of imports? We warned them that the problem was a market that was rigged against coal.
Will the Minister answer the question that he ducked last Wednesday and has already ducked twice today—how many pits will close? The report in The Times says that 20 pits will survive to privatisation. Is that correct, and, if so, does he agree with me on one simple piece of arithmetic, which is that that means that 10 will close?

Mr. Eggar: There is nothing new in what I have just said. My right hon. Friend the President made it clear that the problem facing the British coal industry was the size of the available market. We made that clear this time last year and in the White Paper. My right hon. Friend and I repeated that in the debate in July and the chairman of British Coal has also made it clear. That is a major difficulty facing the coal industry
The hon. Member for Livingston has just repeated the accusation which he made earlier and which he has been making consistently. He said that the White Paper is a fraud. Not for the first time, I find myself wondering whether the hon. Gentleman has ever read the White Paper. In that paper, we were open and realistic about our examination of the market opportunities for coal. We looked at every single suggestion put to us for increasing that market. We checked the opportunities that we identified with the Select Committee, we received evidence from more than 300 organisations and individuals, we commissioned a number of independent studies, we exchanged evidence with the Select Committee, we were able in the White Paper to draw on the Select Committee report and we presented a thorough analysis of the position. Of course, the House approved the conclusions of the White Paper in March.
In the White Paper, we rejected central planning of the energy industries. I should have thought that Opposition Members' experience with the "Plan for Coal" would have taught them that such an approach to central planning is, and always was, doomed to fail. Instead, we set out in the White Paper our policy based on competitive energy markets in which, increasingly, consumers can obtain energy from a diversity of sources at competitive prices. That policy of a competitive energy market has reduced real prices of gas by 20 per cent. since 1986 and has brought down domestic electricity prices over the past two years.
Of course, that policy retains a central role for coal. Coal remains, and will for the foreseeable future, the single largest source of fuel used to generate electricity.

Mr. Eric Clarke: British coal?

Mr. Eggar: Yes. It is overwhelmingly British coal. The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but he appears not to be aware that steam coal imports have fallen by 50 per cent. this year. We set out the reasons for our conclusions about the market and made them clear in the White Paper.
Let me recap briefly on our examination of differrent suggestions that have been put forward. The hon. Member for Livingston and his hon. Friends urged us to intervene in the contracts for gas-fired generation. I must say to him that it is no part of the role of a responsible political party or a responsible Government to interfere with agreed commercial contracts, especially when, on one estimate, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be to put some 50,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry at risk.
Some Opposition Members urged us to ban coal imports in contravention of our international obligations. This year, coal imports have fallen by 15 per cent. and, as I said, steam coal imports have fallen by 50 per cent.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister tell us what international obligations we would be breaching by trying to reduce coal imports?

Mr. Eggar: There are international trading obligations, GATT and European Community obligations. I thought that the Labour party was committed to an open-trading system—maybe I was incorrect.
We were urged to close the magnox nuclear power stations, but the evidence in the White Paper and the evidence submitted to the Select Committee acknowledged that the magnox stations are now producing the cheapest electricity available on an avoidable cost basis.
The Select Committee urged us to limit electricity imports from France. As the Chairman and the Select Committee know very well, we investigated that option thoroughly, but explained to the Select Committee that our clear legal advice was that it would be against Community law and it would not be possible for us to restrict or prevent trade across the interconnector without severe financial and legal consequences.

Mr. David Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that he could solve many problems at one stroke if we were to cease strip mining and devastating the countryside? If we did that, we should be able to save some of the pits because it would be an enormous cost saving not having to devastate the countryside.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the strong feelings of my hon. Friend on that matter and he has talked to me about it frequently. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering, as was stated in the White Paper, the whole matter of mineral planning guidance note 3, which controls such planning permission, and I am hopeful that he will come forward with a consultation document shortly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will contribute to that consultation process.

Mr. Richard Caborn: I want to correct what was surely a misunderstanding by the Minister earlier when he was talking about the modified coal review procedure. If he reads paragraphs 271 and 272


of the Select Committee report carefully, he will see that the modified coal review procedure was invoked in those two paragraphs because our terms of reference differed from those of the Government. They considered 21 pits and we considered all 31. We said that the 10 pits that were lying idle should go back into production, to which the procedure should be allied. It was not to apply to the rest. People believed the President of the Board of Trade when he said that there was to be a realistic investigation. Many people believed that, at least, those other 21 pits were likely to be saved. The procedure in the Select Committee report was applied to the 10 pits that were under immediate threat.

Mr. Eggar: I obviously pay attention to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Select Committee's report, but it seems to be a rather curious position to take that somehow certain pits only should go back into a colliery review procedure which has previously been available for all pits for the past 20 years. It is not clear from his comments whether he opposes the decision made by British Coal on the modified colliery review procedure. Whatever position he takes, I have a long list of his hon. Friends who have signed early-day motion 1143 and would happily hand it to him and suggest that he talks to all of them and gets their views.
In the White Paper, we identified and took a series of practical steps to help the coal industry. The Select Committee recommended that a high priority should be placed on reforming working practices, especially on working hours. In the past week, I announced that we will repeal the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 with effect from 20 November.
As the White Paper and the Select Committee both made clear, there were widely divergent views on the size of the market open to coal. We set out those views in the White Paper. We did not make predictions, but accepted that British Coal should be given a further chance to compete for a bigger market. We responded to the Select Committee's recommendation and offered subsidies for additional sales of deep-mined coal for electricity generation.
In the past week, I was able to announce our first offer of a subsidy to Ellington colliery. That will help safeguard the pit's future for the next 18 months. I can announce today that, subject to European Community approval, we are in the process of making further offers of subsidy to British Coal in support of export sales from Ellington pit.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Minister clarify whether the Ellington pit contract will be for 18 months, as he said in the past week, or, as I now understand it, for 15 months? It has been bandied about that Ellington pit would receive £2 million out of the £500 million available. There is a heck of a lot of money left to be used. Is his Department directly and actively trying to get markets for the coal?

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that I did not write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that point. The contract is for 15 months, running from 1 January next year. When I referred to 18 months, I was talking about the position of the pit covered by that contract more or less 18 months from today. That was the confusion and I apologise if I misled the hon. Gentleman.
The subsidy is still there. We said that we would make £100 million available on the basis that was put forward by the Select Committee. That money is still there. I have just announced that Ellington is to benefit—at least, an offer has been made to British Coal of a further subsidy of coal for export.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Eggar: I am prepared to give way, but I am aware that I am taking up the time of other hon. Members. Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked us to keep speeches short because many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Cash: There are two pits immediately adjacent to my constituency. In relation to subsidy and to putting more money into British Coal, has it been the policy to put money into the new clean coal technologies, such as the topping cycle, which would enable the market for coal to be increased? As I understand it, GEC Alsthom has made it clear that it is possible for us to produce substantial amounts of energy at reasonable prices by the conversion of coal into gas. I am told that in America, as much as $750 million of investment is provided; in the United Kingdom so far, the figure is only £5 million. Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that money will be spent in greater quantities on new technologies?

Mr. Eggar: Over the past 10 years or so, the Government have spent about £200 million on research and development in the general area of clean coal technology. We announced in the White Paper a substantial increase in the amount available to the coal research establishment to enable it, among other things, to expand its level of co-operation with the researchers in the United States who are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) rightly points out, making a major commitment in terms of the expansion of research and development activity.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: For the last time.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has been generous in giving way. He referred to the assistance given to collieries. Will he now answer the question I put to him last week? When redundancies occur under privatization—all this is building up to privatization—will the miners who are made redundant receive redundancy payments the same as or similar to those received now under British Coal?

Mr. Eggar: That is a matter for British Coal. The Government have said that we shall be willing to extend the redundancy payments that we make available to British Coal for onward transmission until the end of April. I have also made it clear that in the event of there being consultations on closures that began this year, there would, of course, have to be continued availability of those terms beyond the end of April, if the consultations should continue. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the details are a matter for British Coal.
The hon. Member for Livingston belittled the Government's commitment in terms of the finance that they had made available to British Coal. He belittled the fact that we had made available £20 billion to British Coal since 1979. Let me spell it out for him and for my hon.
Friends. The £20 billion is the equivalent of 200 new hospitals. It is the equivalent of 3,000 new secondary schools. It is equivalent to the cost of doubling the country's motorway network. The hon. Gentleman seeks to belittle that investment.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will not give way. I am sorry. My hon. Friend must realise that I have given way generously. I am sure that he will have a chance to make his own contribution in his own way.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way again.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has repeated the figure of £20 billion, which he gave last week. Is he aware that £8 billion of that is capital investment and that £6 billion existed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Livingston talked today as if there would be no jobs for the coal miners who had been made redundant over the past year. He seems to ignore the success of British Coal Enterprise. Some 9,000 former employees of British Coal have been found jobs or long-term training opportunities by British Coal Enterprise. The chief executive of British Coal Enterprise has made it clear that he believes that 88 per cent. of its active clients—the people who are registered with it—will be found a job by British Coal Enterprise and that 75 per cent. of its active clients will find jobs within the first 12 months of registration.
What of the hon. Member for Livingston? What of the Labour party? From time to time, the hon. Gentleman offers his solutions for the energy market. Characteristically, he fails to spell out the consequences of his answers. Perhaps he has failed to do so because he knows that some hard choices have to be made within the energy market. The fact is, as his hon. Friends know, that a bigger market for coal can be created only at the expense of some other energy source. If we create a bigger market for coal, we shall have to close down the nuclear power stations, we shall have to intervene in the gas generation contracts or we shall have to take illegal action against another member of the European Community.
If the hon. Member for Livingston wants to burn a lot more coal, he will have to square that with our commitments on the environmental front. He has conveniently ignored the additional costs—and therefore the increased lack of competitiveness for coal burn—of retrofitting desulphurisation equipment in power stations. Not only did he ignore that cost, but he ignored the fact that there is no technology available for removing carbon emissions from coal-fired stations. He simply does not understand the environmental aspects of coal.
The hon. Member for Livingston called the White Paper a fraud. What is the Labour party's energy policy? Last October, we asked the same question and we got no answer. We asked again in March and there was no answer. We asked in July and there was still no answer. There was

a small step forward at the Labour party conference last month which you will have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last month, the Labour party decided that it would come up with its energy policy by the time of the 1994 conference. The national executive committee spokesman had obviously spoken too soon. Last week, the hon. Member for Clackmannan announced in an interview:
there will not be a comprehensive energy policy in place until the 1995 Labour party conference.
Who knows? We may be very lucky. The country may get a view of the Labour party's energy policy by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, Labour avoids all the difficult choices. It fails to understand that Governments have to make choices. If Labour, in opposition, aspires to government, it has to make choices in opposition and it has to make its policy clear.
The Government have spelt out their approach clearly. We have done everything possible, within the constraints of the economic reality and within our legal obligations, to increase the opportunities for British coal. We believe that the best future for British coal lies in the private sector. Privatisation offers the best prospect for the coal industry, which is why we are committed to introducing the legislation necessary to achieve privatisation at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Terry Patchett: I am grateful for having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the 31 collieries that the Secretary of State has doomed to closure, two—Houghton Main and Grimethorpe—are in my area. Indeed, I worked at Houghton Main for 26 years, and I know what reserves will be wasted.
It appears that the Government's objective in the debate 12 months ago was to play for time cynically in order to deflect public attention from the coal industry. Although the Minister led the House to believe that he would take a fresh look at the pits that he had named for closure and that he would investigate fresh market potential for coal, taking into account the Select Committee's report, he has not done that.
I believe that the Select Committee's investigation was merely a charade set up by the Government as a time-wasting exercise, and I was far from happy with the Committee's report. It did, however, contain some suggestions, although I am sure that every member of the Committee would concede that nothing in the report was taken up by the Government. The Government have used the time that they created for themselves through their promises, which were in fact commitments made to the House, by proceeding deviously with their original closure programme.
It is ironic that just before last year's debate I had been invited by the Commonwealth secretariat to go to Ghana as an observer of the election on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The election was to take place the day after the coal debate. Since Grimethorpe and Houghton Main, which were on the hit list, are in my constituency, I was reluctant to be out of the country at that time. However, one of the Whips assured me that I had nothing to worry about in the near future as the Minister had made a commitment to the House that nothing would happen to the pits until he had done as he promised, and that the Minister would have to honour that commitment.
I went to Ghana with some trepidation but not without making arrangements for matters to be watched at the two
collieries in my constituency and for me to be kept informed. Sure enough, within three days of my arrival in Ghana, I received a message that the two collieries were being proposed for salvaging—so much for honouring a commitment. I came home to get the true picture.
The truth appeared to be that the coal board was organising the voluntary closure of pits by the men themselves; or so the Government would have us believe. In fact, the men were being blackmailed with threats of huge losses in redundancy money if they did not sign by a certain date. Knowing the National Union of Mineworkers and the mining industry as I do, I assure the House that not one pit branch of the NUM voted voluntarily for pit closure; they voted as they did because of financial threats.
Proof of the Government's lack of commitment to the mining industry is the fact that, since the pit closure announcement on 13 October 1992, 21 of the pits that were earmarked for closure have stopped production with the loss of 21,000 mining jobs—affecting more than half of the country's miners—and more than 60,000 jobs in related industries.
The Government have failed to make progress on even the few modest proposals in the White Paper. Despite the commitments made in that White Paper, nothing has been done to stop the power generators running down coal stocks, to cut the dash for more expensive gas-fired electricity generation, to restrict the expansion of opencast mining, to limit the import of expensive, subsidised nuclear power from France, to reduce the dumping of coal imports or to promote the export of British coal. In addition, not one penny of the promised £500 million Government subsidy for extra coal sales to the electricity market has been made available.
To make matters worse, the Government have not only closed pits but made absolutely sure to sabotage access to the remaining reserves in the doomed collieries; reserves that even they may one day have to consider trying to extract. By having the shafts filled, the Government are denying access to the reserves that are the nation's treasure house. The Government have no overall energy policy. They have not considered the complete cost of this shambles which affects the balance of payments and causes a loss of revenue to the Exchequer and an increase in unemployment costs in general.
Given the deceit that the Minister has perpetrated on the general public and the House, and knowing him to be an honourable gentleman, I personally expect him to resign before the evening is over.

Mr. Simon Burns: The House will agree that the past 12 or 14 months have been traumatic for the coal industry. I am sure that we are united in an utter dislike of unemployment and its effect on individuals and communities, whether coalfield communities or not. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy said, Governments have to govern, and there are times when tough decisions have to be made, however unpalatable they may be.
In the past few months, much has been made of the significant, even dramatic, improvements in productivity in the coalfields in recent years. Of course, everyone pays tribute to the tremendous work of the miners in raising

productivity, but it is a sad fact of life that the realisation that productivity has to be increased to earn money, and the increases themselves, came far too late.
We should never have had to live through the strike of 1984–here is one man who needs to be chastised for the current state of the British coal industry, it is Mr. Arthur Scargill. If in the 1970s and early 1980s the coal industry had had the realism that it has had for the past few years, it would have become world competitive. It would have been able to carve out a market in this country and win markets overseas to safeguard its future.
Although the debate about the current number of mines in this country is uppermost in everyone's mind, we should not forget—this is not merely a debating point—that mines have been closing since the war because the market has been contracting. The problem facing this country and the coal industry is straightforward; it is evident to anyone who cares to look. British Coal is producing more coal day after day, week after week, but no one will buy it in sufficient quantity. The Government have embraced the Select Committee's recommendation and have been prepared to pay a subsidy to help British Coal become competitive. We heard the announcement at Ellington about the first subsidy being paid—but unfortunately that does not diminish the need for a far greater market for coal. I hope that the Minister, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will wind up the debate, will be able to assure the House that British Coal will seek to do everything within its power to try to attract more orders for its coal and to help create a bigger market for it.
In recent months the importance of what is being done to help the coalfield communities has been overlooked, yet it is crucial. Unlike many of our constituencies, in which people do not live in villages and communities as they may have done many years ago, the coalfield communities are places where people still rely on each other and, sadly, they have relied on a single industry for their survival and their success. Over the past 12 months there have been some important improvements and some genuine help has been given to those who have become redundant to assist them in finding alternative employment, to become reskilled and retrained and so enhance their opportunities to get back to work as quickly as possible.
To my mind, the most important role of Government, and of individual Members of Parliament, is to seek to encourage as much expansion and improvement in the economy as possible, and to minimise unemployment so that people have more opportunities to get into work and to earn a living. [Interruption.] I tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is talking from a sedentary position, that no Opposition Member has a monopoly in terms of worrying about the unemployed. All my hon. Friends care as much as he does about people who are out of work and cannot find a job.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I may have put my point rather strongly, because I was saying that you were talking nonsense, but the Government have to accept that your care and concern for the unemployed has been judged by your actions, and the results of your actions.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, despite his strong feelings, he is addressing me.

Mr. Hood: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Burns: Despite the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, I trust that he will not become too sanctimonious and bother the House with humbug. It ill befits the hon. Gentleman to lecture Conservative Members as if he had a god-given right to be the only individual who cares about the unemployed.
I shall return to my original point about the regeneration measures by which the Government seek to help the coalfield communities that have had so many problems over the past 12 months. It should not be forgotten that the greater part of £200 million in the regeneration packages announced in October and March has already been put into place in areas affected by pit closures. Major projects are under way in all those areas: £6.5 million has been spent on the Robin Hood line extension to Mansfield—

Mr. Paddy Tipping: rose—

Mr. Burns: Wait a moment.
Two million pounds more is being spent on the Viking business park in south Tyneside; English Estates is investing £24 million in providing up to 200,000 sq ft of commercial space in Yorkshire and Humberside. Local partnerships are well established in all affected areas and are working together to ensure that sustained and lasting regeneration takes place.
Since last October Lord Walker, in another place, has been co-ordinating the regeneration package. An important element of that package has been the confirmation of assisted area status in the announcement made in July about the new map by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. Doncaster, Mansfield and Barnsley have all been upgraded to development area status. Wakefield, Dewsbury, Castleford and Pontefract, Alfreton and Ashfield, Chesterfield and Retford have all been upgraded and have become intermediate areas. Assisted area status will ensure that all those places are eligible for the full range of regional assistance available from the Government, and that will help to provide genuine opportunities to regenerate the areas that have been so sorely affected over the past year or so.

Mr. Tipping: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Robin Hood line. It is true that the Secretary of State for Transport made the announcement last May in Nottingham, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that six months later the local authorities involved are still waiting for confirmation about how the money will be made available. Will it come as a grant or as a standard spending assessment? The authorities also need to know whether the money will be available this year, next year or the year after. It is all very well to announce such projects, but it is good to get things built on the ground. We want to see new jobs and new things happening, not to hear hollow empty promises.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I fully understand his anxiety and his desire that, when an announcement is made, action should be taken as swiftly as is humanly possible afterwards to assist his constituents and other people in the area. I am sure that he will be pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are in the Chamber and will have heard his plea. No doubt his message will be taken to the Secretary

of State for Transport, and I trust that any problems can be resolved as quickly as possible so that we can get the scheme under way.

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Mr. Burns: I am afraid that I must make progress, as many hon. Members still want to speak.
Over the past 12 months we have heard a lot about one subject; we have heard about it today, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, too, alluded to it. I am talking about the many vague throwaway lines, especially from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), about what the Government should or should not do. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston is not in his place to hear the debate, because it is an important debate for all Members of the House. It seems sad that the 20-second sound bite for tonight's television news is more important to the hon. Gentleman than being in the Chamber to listen to the debate and to the concerns of all hon. Members on this important subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Burns: Hon. Members may say, "Cheap", but it is no cheaper than a number of remarks that the hon. Member—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a point of order.

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not one of the normal courtesies of the House that when a Back Bencher intends to refer to another hon. Member he informs that hon. Member of his intention? Furthermore, is the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is currently attending a meeting of the shadow Cabinet?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly true that that is a courtesy of the House if one hon. Member intends to attack another, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was aware that if one intended to raise an issue about another hon. Member one gave him notice, but I have slipped up tonight because I assumed that the hon. Member for Livingston would have the courtesy to remain in the Chamber and listen to the debate rather than slink off to a shadow Cabinet meeting. However, that is up to the hon. Gentleman and I do not wish to pursue the matter.
All too often we hear from the Opposition throwaway lines about the need to close down nuclear power stations and to restrict gas-fired power stations. They forget what would happen if we did that—such ideas are so easy to throw out when one is in opposition. They do not take into account the number of jobs that would be lost in the nuclear and gas industries; people would be thrown out of work and on to the dole queues. It is too easy and simplistic to give such advice when one has not the responsibility of office, and does not have to implement it.
The Opposition's attitude to nuclear power is especially fascinating. The hon. Member for Livingston and some of his hon. Friends are often quick to dismiss the nuclear industry and call for people to be thrown out of it. I am sure


that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would not agree with that, but then we all know that the Labour party is deeply split on nuclear energy.
I have with me a rather interesting Fabian pamphlet entitled "No Nukes!" by Robin Cook. The foreword boldly pronounces:
Robin Cook examines the case for civilian nuclear power and finds it to be unneeded.
Hon. Members might be interested to know the Labour party's position. The foreword goes to to state:
The Labour Party played its full part in the development of the nuclear industry in Britain. It was the Attlee government that established the UK Atomic Energy Authority … It was the Wilson government … that initiated the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor … programme which committed Britain to the construction of five more nuclear power stations, and by the end of the Callaghan government"—
in those far-off days of 1978–79, when we were in the hands of the IMF, when we had cuts in our hospitals, education and everything else; those halcyon days—
a commitment had been made to a two further AGR stations. Yet"—
[Interruption.] Opposition Members anticipate me. The pamphlet continues:
Yet during Labour's last spell in office our identification with nuclear power provoked a number of controversies within the movement itself".
I suspect that the right hon. Member for Copeland and the hon. Member for Workington would not welcome those controversies because they fully support the nuclear power industry, probably because of the siting of Windscale, and they fight diligently for the interests of consumers, their constituents and the overall energy policy of this country.
In that fascinating tract, the hon. Member for Livingston went on to say:
we may require no further power stations for at least a decade and will free resources for investment elsewhere in the public sector. If we do require a new station it should be coal-fired".
That shows his rejection of nuclear power, but he never tells us how many people would be thrown out of work and the misery that that would cause for their families. Let me tell him—it would be more than 100,000 people. I am not surprised, frankly, that he does not talk too much about that matter.

Mr. Caborn: Has the hon. Gentleman read the motion? It states:
recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee in its Report on British Energy Policy … would ensure fair competition for coal against other fuels and secure a wider market for coal.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in that balanced energy policy, there was a role for about 25 per cent. to 27 per cent. of electricity produced by nuclear power. In fact, there was to have been a nuclear review.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suggest—I suspect that he has not seen it before—that he makes his bedtime reading that fascinating Fabian Society document entitled, "No Nukes!" by Robin Cook.

Mr. Caborn: That is what we are debating.

Mr. Burns: Indeed we are, but I have tried to show that, whatever the hon. Member for Livingston has signed up to in his responsibility as a member of the shadow Cabinet, he

also writes documents which seem to be at variance with what he adds his name to. It is not the first time, and I suspect that it will not be the last time.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a document which was written in 1980.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman overheard one of my hon. Friends. In fact it was written in July 1981, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the hon. Member for Livingston has not repudiated the contents of that document in any way.
There are several other matters that the House should know about. They are rather more interesting than the general political knockabout that we heard from the Opposition spokesman. How many mines would the Labour party save? Exactly how would the Labour party save those mines? It is all well and good for Labour politicians to go around the country mouthing support for this group and that group, but, without any concrete proposals and real facts and figures, that is worthless and utterly meaningless. How would the Labour party obtain more contracts and a larger share of the market for coal in this country and overseas? It is all too easy to complain and criticise. The country and the House need to hear exactly what the Labour party would do to redress the situation.
The Liberal Democrats always have a view on every critical issue in this country. I noticed that, uncharacteristically, there is no Liberal Democrat amendment on the Order Paper, unless—perhaps I am being uncharitable—my Order Paper is incomplete. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not usually shy in coming forward. He is not seeking to intervene. Obviously the Liberal Democrats do not have an amendment, so one assumes that they either could not agree an amendment or they have no view at all.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I might as well give the hon. Gentleman the answer now. I hope that it will bring his speech to an end. All my colleagues will vote with the Labour party and all other opposition parties and, I hope, with some of the hon. Gentleman's more intelligent colleagues in support of the overwhelming view of the British people that we should do something to try to save the coal industry, not sell it down the river.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for that clarification. He did not actually tell me why the Liberal Democrats have not tabled an amendment, but that is neither here nor there. I warn the hon. Gentleman that those who stand in the middle of the road usually tend to be run over. It is characteristic of the Liberal Democrats that they always sit on the fence or stand in the middle of the road until they think that they know which is the best way to jump for the maximum number of votes.
Nobody usually knows exactly where the Liberal Democrats stand on any issue, and energy policy is no exception. With their typical clarity, vision and sense of purpose, they have two policies on energy, which I suspect is to appeal to the maximum number of people in the hope of gaining the maximum number of votes, as that seems to be what motivates them.
The Liberal Democrats' alternative White Paper on energy and the environment, which was published in January—the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is displaying it—suggests that they could


increase the market for coal by 50 per cent. by interfering in the market. Unfortunately, that policy directly contradicts their document on a carbon tax, which was published in September and which said that their carbon tax would increase the price of coal by a mere 58 per cent. Any sane person in his right mind can work out that such a price rise, when we are trying to make the price of coal more competitive with world market prices, would destroy any chance of British coal competing in the world market.
Of course, the facts and consistency never get in the way of the Liberal Democrats in their pursuit of votes. Their energy policy is a little like their defence policy. Liberal Democrats in Scotland want Rosyth for Trident, Liberal Democrats in the south-west want Devonport for Trident, and Liberal Democrats at Westminster just want to scrap the whole thing.
This is an important debate. It is a difficult matter because difficult decisions must be taken. I am glad that, during a very difficult time, the Government have searched far and wide for the best possible solution.
The Government took genuine account of the Select Committee report, which recommended a subsidy. They offered a subsidy to help and to give British coal breathing space to seek more markets. I hope that British Coal will be told in no uncertain terms—I am sure that it has already been told—that it must work hard to carve out better markets. I also hope that British Coal will be left in no doubt that the pits that may possibly be privatised must be left in a proper state.
The way forward must be privatisation. The nationalisation of British Coal was not the solution to a problem—effectively, it was the continuing cause of a problem. Privatisation will provide an opportunity for private enterprise to give the British coal industry a future where people can work in it, produce coal and find markets to which that coal can be sold. The sooner my hon. Friend the Minister introduces a Bill to enable the coal industry to be privatised, the better it will be for us and for the coal industry.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I regret that the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seemed to be a combination of the usual Tory dogma, the Tory brief from Central Office and the Tory distortion of the facts when Tory Members are driven to quote from a Labour document published 12 years ago and to misquote from one of our documents. The figures attributed to us by the hon. Gentleman came from Cambridge Econometrics, not the Liberal Democrats. I have the documents in front of me. It must have something to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman is feeling more vulnerable now as a result not simply of having a Liberal Democrat challenging him most closely in his parliamentary seat, and having previously lost control of his local authority, but also not running his county council either since the Tories were defeated in Essex last May.

Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman went on for a long time. He also clearly indicated that he will not leave the Chamber until 10 o'clock because he criticised someone who did not stay. I give him notice that I will be leaving for a short time to attend my parliamentary party meeting and then I will

come back. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not move from his seat between now and 10 o'clock, otherwise he will also take the biscuit for hypocrisy this evening.
The last time that we voted on this issue was in July. The Opposition parties, with some support from Government Members, managed to get the Government to within 22 votes of a change of policy. Since then, one more Tory seat has fallen and the Government's majority has been reduced by two. The fact that in the past year my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who is with me on the Bench, and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) have taken seats from the Tory party is more to do with the Government's failure to understand the rejection of their economic, employment and energy policies and their interrelationship in this country than with anything else. [Interruption.] If the Minister does not understand that the Tories had the two largest by-election defeats in recent history largely because of their fuel policy and the tax on fuel, I do not know where he has been in the past few months.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Shutting pits.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish that a few more Ministers had been shut in pits. The President of the Board of Trade has not been down any pits.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: He has been shutting them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I said that it would have been better if they had been shut in pits, not shutting them.
One year ago, the President of the Board of Trade made a statement in the House in which he announced the beginning of the sad year that we have just gone through. He said:
I accept full responsibility for that decision, as I do for the consequent events."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 205.]
When he made his second statement on 25 March 1993, at the end of the Government's review of coal policy, he said:
Finally, let me remind the House of what I said earlier. There can be no guarantees. The market for coal is complex and unpredictable. Even among the experts, opinions differ. I have done all that I reasonably could, consistent with economic British Coal."—[Official Report, 25 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1241.]
When the Minister came to the House last week to make the third coal statement, he did not even make that claim. Today, the criticism of the Opposition parties is that the Government have not done all that they reasonably could, and are not even thinking of doing all that they reasonably can.
We hope that, as a result of an intelligently and reasonably put argument—as it was from the Labour Front Bench and, hopefully, is now and will be by Back-Bench Members—perhaps some Government Members will either vote with us or abstain because there are differences of policy that could be pursued by the Government. Such differences would help to achieve a result that Britain generally, as well as the coal industry specifically, needs.
Since we met to debate this issue one year ago, we have gone from a position of debating the future of 50 pits to one of debating the future of 30 pits. Twenty pits have ceased production and there is a severe risk that we will be down to 20 pits, as suggested by the leak in The Times yesterday.
What is the global background against which that is happening in our country? Like other hon. Members who take an interest in these matters, I obtain the regular press


releases from British Coal. Two press releases, among others, came to me in September. I quote from the press release dated 1 September 1993. The heading is
Coal Use Expanding World-Wide.
The press release reads:
'Britain out of step', says marketing chief. 'Britain is out of step with the rest of the world in turning its back on coal', British Coal's marketing director said today (Wed). Speaking at the British Association's annual meeting at Keele University in Staffordshire, Andrew Horsier said both developed and developing countries were investing in coal-fired plant for electricity generation.
Later in the month, I received a copy of a speech of the chairman of British Coal—before the speech in which he hinted that he was not optimistic about the future. He clearly said that, first, the Government had not fulfilled all of their obligations. I quote:
Policy guidelines on the level of stocks for electricity generation, to which Government referred in its White Paper and which currently stand at some 33 million tonnes at power stations alone, are yet to be issued".
Secondly, he said that the World Energy Council, at its meeting in September, made it plain that energy assessments have an increased role for coal in the world, not a diminished one. Therefore, the world will look for more coal to use.
Britain has the cheapest competitive coal, as well as the best stocks, in the European Community. Therefore, it is madness for the Government to stand on one side and say, "We reject central planning. Our policy is to ensure if we can that coal remains the single largest source of fuel for electricity and yet do nothing to ensure that that can be guaranteed." Of course, the chairman is pessimistic.
If we look back over the past year, we see that the Government were deluding everyone on the facts about the realistic prospects. British Coal could have competed with imported coal with regard to inland power stations because of the benefits of local transport advantage. However, it could not have competed with regard to coastal power stations where importing coal is not nearly such an expensive business. Therefore, the argument that domestically produced coal would be able to displace imported coal never did stand up on the basis of all the facts. The Government knew that, in all probability, they would rarely have to use the offer of the subsidy, and that has been borne out by the facts. Effectively, the only use of the subsidy was announced last week with regard to Alcan at Ellington, which has been amplified and extended this week.
In the White Paper, and even today, the Government have not made clear what the sensible and intelligent level of stocks should be. The discussions need to be concluded. Yes, large stocks are being produced because British Coal has been very effective and productive. Yes, the stocks might be higher than they have been for a while. However, we do not know what sort of a winter we will have this year or next. We also have no idea whether the Government yet have a clear view of what the stocks should be, which is a crucial determinant of the amount of coal that the industry should be able to sell. The Government have not talked to the electricity generators to seek to persuade them to come to a conclusion over the additional purchases that they may be able to acquire, over and above their base stock. It is imperative that that is done before any decisions are taken about any of the collieries that are still under threat.
The problem is that the Government are obsessed with price as opposed to cost. If one adds up all the costs of the coal industry and compares them with all the costs involved in the nuclear generation of electricity, the assessment is honest and honourable, but the Government do not do so. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister nodding his head because the figures are clear.
In their White Paper the Government said that the avoidable costs of generating electricity from existing coal-fired stations are generally less than the full cost of a new combined cycle gas turbine. The price of electricity generated by nuclear power, at about 1.2p per Kw hour, seems cheap when compared with that of coal, but if one considers the total cost of nuclear power—including all the levy subsidies from other sources—it is about 4.3p per Kw hour, which makes it considerably more expensive than coal.
The Minister has to equate like with like. The problem with this debate and those last year is that coal has not been given a chance to compete on equal terms with its competitors. On its own terms, it is not only winning in the market here but is also winning in other competitive markets abroad. Our coal is now nearly as cheap as any imported coal.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman ought to compare like with like. He has quoted the full cost of gas and nuclear electricity, compared with the avoidable cost of coal. If he wishes to go in for that exercise, he ought to compare the avoidable cost of coal with the avoidable costs of nuclear and gas. He will find that the cost for coal is higher than for electricity generated by nuclear or gas.
I know that the Liberals inhabit cloud cuckoo land, but when independent generators can invest in new coal-fired stations, as they can invest in gas-fired stations, why does he think that no independent generator has opted to do so?

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister remember that I and my colleagues submitted a full submission to the coal review? The hon. Member for Chelmsford suggested that Liberal Democrats do not have a clear policy, but our policy was very clear and we submitted it, unlike, I should add, the Labour party, which did not submit an alternative at all.
At the beginning of this year we published a further full statement of our policy, and it dealt with the avoidable cost question, which is serious. I understand the dilemma. Our policy dealt with how the Government can pull the levers to create a market for coal within which there is fair competition. The Minister knows what the various policy options are.
The French interconnector is one option that we have often discussed and the Minister and his colleagues have begun to deal with that.
The second option that must be dealt with is the argument about equality and the level playing field, and that involves the nuclear levy. There is no disagreement about the £20 billion in public money given to the coal industry—taking the figures back to 1979. We know that, as electricity consumers, we all make a contribution towards the nuclear levy, too. That has protected the industry, and is evidence showing why the nuclear industry was not sold when the Government privatised electricity generation. If one could correct that imbalance, people would choose coal.
As the Minister knows, the long-term contracts, which create a 15-year tie-up to the electricity generators, are the third and most important option. The generators have managed to protect themselves even though—as independent witnesses among others have said—the cost of gas on the world market is increasing whereas that of coal is decreasing.
As I want to win the argument, I shall be reasonable. I would be happy—not for myself or for my party, but for the country and the coal industry—to meet the Minister and to go through the document that we produced. I am advised that our figures are accurate. We could do that on a rational basis, away from the Chamber. I hope that he would then agree at least to reconsider pulling the levers that only the Government can pull. If they do not do so, they will leave British Coal alone, unsupported and, they hope, in the private sector.
I do not want to extend the debate but must comment on two further matters. It is ludicrous that we are still not trying to evaluate the prospects for coal in the context of a total energy policy for this country. The same, sadly, was true a year ago. We are awaiting a debate on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the gas industry; the debate on the review of the nuclear industry is in the wings and a leak yesterday suggested that the Government may be going for a 20 to 25 per cent. nuclear energy component; a debate about the renewable energy industry is also in the wings; and in March we debated coal industry policy. We cannot possibly plan a long-term strategy whereby the coal industry will have some security unless it is part of the review of our total energy mix and we come to a common view about which component works where.
It is no good the Minister saying that we must just leave it to the market. I know what the Government are up to. They are holding the fort until the next Session. They will then put a Bill before Parliament to privatise the coal industry, sell it off and wash their hands of it, saying, "It's nothing to do with us." That is Thatcherism gone mad. The paradox is that I thought that it was a case of Thatcher going mad; but she now realises that the policy is mad, just as the Government are continuing with it.
Privatisation is probably irrelevant to the future world market for coal and the British contribution to it. British Coal becomes more productive, effective and efficient every week. Privatisation will change none of that and the Government ought to put the privatisation proposals and debate on the back burner until they have taken responsibility for the industry and given it a secure future first.
Why did the Minister duck the question that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and I both asked him? Why did he give a fatuous answer about windmills, which he knows are entirely irrelevant? What is the minimum size that he and the Government are willing to allow the coal industry to be reduced to? All the expert advice suggests that the industry will not be viable below a certain size. It will not be a player in the world market and will effectively be written off. Much of our deep-mined coal is viable, many pits have plenty of stocks left and many people who work in them want to keep their jobs rather than do something else. That should be the Minister's concern, and he needs to come clean with his colleague the Secretary of State for Employment at the end of the debate and tell us what is the bottom line for the Government—or is there no bottom line, which is what we believe?
We must all be concerned about the consequences for jobs. Of course we should not maintain the industry merely so that people can keep their jobs if we do not need it; but what if we do need it and people want to work in it? The statistics are clear. Coal-mining areas have some of the highest unemployment in the country and evidence shows that, once out of work, the majority of people do not find work again in a short time. When, they do find a job, it is not usually as secure or as highly paid, and many households soon become dependent upon the woman as the main wage earner. We are therefore right to be concerned about the economic implications of pit closures. It is madness to pay redundancy to people to do nothing when coal is in the pits, they want to work and there is a global, European and British market for the product.
The Government must also come clean on opencast coal mining. There has been draft interim planning guidance, but we have not had the final document. It is absolute nonsense to close down pits in which there has been capital investment underground while ripping up England's green and pleasant land for opencast mines that most communities do not want. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who represents one of the heartlands of England, made the point as tellingly as I can. We must say no to opencast mining because the louder and more clearly we say no, the more supportive we will be of the British coal industry and exisiting pits.
I hope that the Minister will accept my invitation to go through the statistics together away from the Chamber. I do not think that he understands yet how overwhelming the case is for the coal industry to survive. I hope that his hon. Friends will make it clear that they are not satisfied that the Government have done all they can. I hope above all that it will be clear to the British people that, although they may sometimes feel betrayed by the Government and those who work for the Government, many of us and the majority of British people within and outside coalfield communities believe that British Coal has a future and want it to have a future and that the Government so far have been profoundly wrong.

Mr. Winston Churchill: A week ago, I returned to Westminster from Blackpool with every hope and intention of doing my bit for party unity, only to be hit between the eyes with what the Governor of Hong Kong would call "a double whammy" of further defence cuts and additional pit closures, neither of which I am able to support.
In common with certain other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I had the opportunity in recent months of visiting several pits. Indeed, I had the privilege of going underground at Welbeck and Calverton collieries with men who, without a shadow of a doubt, are the finest deep miners in the world. These same men kept the lights on when Arthur Scargill turned his bulldozer of the National Union of Mineworkers against parliamentary democracy in 1984. The Conservative party and this Government owe those men a great debt of honour as, indeed, the noble Lady, Baroness Thatcher, herself acknowledges. Nothing grieves me more in this sad and sorry business than that the present generation of Ministers is prepared to kick those men wantonly and gratuitously in the teeth.
There is bewilderment, cynicism and anger in the coalfields. They have fulfilled all ministerial injunctions to increase productivity, to reform working practices and to modernise their production to put it on a par with any coalfield to be found anywhere else in the world. They have broken every record in the book in the name of market testing. Since March, many pits have increased productivity by a further 20 per cent. The Minister for Industry cannot point me to another industry in the land that has achieved productivity increases on the scale that has taken place in recent months in the coalfields. As one miner said to me and some hon. Friends only last night, "We are just burying ourselves in our own coal." That is the measure of their success in fulfilling Ministers' injunctions.
I find it difficult to explain what is going on. Clearly, it started in the mid to late 1980s as an understandable determination by Ministers that this country should never again be held hostage by Arthur Scargill, or any successor, and the NUM. But there is a limit to the time that generals or, indeed, Ministers can fight the battles of yesteryear. There is no militancy left in the pits. Scargill has no clout left. To fight the battles of a decade ago is to miss the point entirely. They are irrelevant. What started as a plan to put Scargill and the NUM in their place now appears to be a craven bowing down by Ministers to the vested interests that were established in the wake of electricity privatisation.
I am glad that in opening today's debate the Minister did not once again trot out his hoary old chestnut that we have a free market in energy. It is patently clear to everyone in the land that there is no free market in energy. We have the most rigged market that it would be possible to devise. [Interruption.] The Minister groans, and well he may. Each year, a £1.3 billion subsidy goes from the electricity consumer to Nuclear Electric. Is not that evidence of a rigged market? Nuclear Electric has a guarantee that it can sell to the grid every kilowatt hour of energy that it produces. Is not that evidence of a rigged market? Similar privileges have been accorded to our friends across the channel with the interconnector.
It is inconceivable that Ministers allow themselves and the British electricity consumer to pay a subsidy to Electricite de France because they accept that every kilowatt hour of electricity that comes through the channel interconnector is produced by nuclear energy. They know full well that nothing could be further from the truth. Much of it is produced by fossil fuels, so it should be charged with the fossil fuel levy and should not get the kickback subsidy that the mug of the British consumer is required to fund through his electricity bill.
In March, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade reprieved 12 of the 31 pits that on 13 October 1992 he announced would close. At that time, undertakings were given that he would take steps to carve out a wider market for coal. Does my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy recall being present in the room of the President of the Board of Trade when that undertaking was given to me and several of our hon. Friends on the evening of 24 March? If so, could he perhaps tell me, the House and our mineworkers what steps he has taken personally with his ministerial colleagues to honour that promise? I willingly would give way to him if he cares to answer.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak, speak."] It remains possible for people not to break their silence, although I believe that the Government have plans to address that matter for the criminal courts, if not for the House.
What steps have my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues taken to reign back the dash for gas to load following rather than base-load generation, as recommend by the Select Committee?

Mr. John McFall: None.

Mr. Churchill: Quite so. Indeed, the Government have licensed two additional stations when they were under no legal obligation to do so.
What steps have my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues taken to require Nuclear Electric to use the subsidy of £1.3 billion a year for the very purpose for which it is paid—to put in place an orderly programme for the closure of the Magnox reactors? Instead, that subsidy has been used to fund those reactors so that they can continue to operate in the future.
What steps have my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues taken to prevent the generators running down their coal stocks at an unnecessarily rapid rate, which has had the effect of utterly kicking the bottom out of the market for coal? What is the value of market testing when there is no market? That coal could be delivered free of charge to the generators and it still would not be possible to find a market for it.
What steps have my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues taken to curb the burning of orimulsion by requiring flue gas desulphurisation technology to be put in place to cope with that very dirty form of fuel? Has the Prime Minister been in touch with Prime Minister Balladur, either on the telephone or face to face, to insist on equality of flow through the channel interconnector? Has my right hon. Friend asked that gentleman to facilitate —as the French are bound to do under the treaty of Rome —the export of electricity from this country to Spain and other EC countries via the French grid?
I look forward to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the evident unwillingness, or possible inability, of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy to answer the questions that I have posed.
I regret to say that Ministers have taken none of the steps that I have outlined. Therefore, the reprieves that they announced earlier this year and the exercise in market testing were simply nothing more, at least in their eyes, than a cynical charade. In consequence, even the 12 reprieved pits-12 out of 31—of which 10 now remain, will be closed. I believe that some of those closures will be announced next week and others in the coming months. No doubt even more pits besides those 10 will be closed, perhaps even some of the 19 core pits that were not on the original hit list of British Coal and the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Minister makes great play of the fact that the coal industry has received £20 billion in subsidy in recent years from the Government. He misleads the House, however, if he seeks to suggest that those funds or the bulk of them have been put towards investing in the industry's future. He knows full well that that is not the case. Those funds have had to be provided to close down the industry and to pay miners to go away. They have been used for a different purpose from that implied. My hon. Friend knows full well that no operating subsidy has been paid to the


mining industry in the past 10 years, and to harp on that figure of £20 billion does my hon. Friend's case less than justice.
Certain of my hon. Friends and many of our constituents are concerned about the cost of the intended imposition of VAT on fuel. I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that if the pit closures programme, as announced 12 months ago, is implemented in full, the cost will exceed the entire net revenue to be derived from VAT on fuel in 1996–97, when it will be paid at the full rate of 17.5 per cent. It is anticipated that that tax will generate £2.2 billion net. Evidence given to the Select Committee, however, suggested that the cost of paying miners to go away and of closing the pits will run to £2.5 billion. Obviously, that is far greater than the amount that will be raised in revenue from that unpopular tax.
What Government in the world would put under 6 ft of concrete a nation's greatest natural resource? In fact, we have the greatest natural resource of Europe. What Government would sack a work force who have broken all productivity records and who are employed in the least expensive deep mining industry in the world? That decision is unnecessary and wrong and, in consequence, I have no alternative but to cast my vote against the Government tonight.
I can tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that it gives me no pleasure to oppose my own party and my own Government. As Members of Parliament, however, if we have any good purpose in the House, surely it is not to follow blindly the Whips' bidding and to rubber-stamp Government policies, whether they are right or wrong. Our purpose must be to vote for what we believe to be right and in the national interest.
I shall not vote against the Government just to make a protest against something that is inevitable—the closure of the pits—because I do not accept that inevitability. Even now, at least 10 of those 31 pits could be saved. That can happen, however, only if the House requires the Government to abandon what I believe to be their shameful, short-sighted and wrong-headed policy. In those circumstances, the Government would have no choice but to tackle head on the rigging of the market against coal. They would have to establish a truly fair and free market in energy and reign in the dash for gas. They would be required to curb the nuclear industry at the margins. They would also be required to pick up the telephone and call Prime Minister Balladur to make it clear that we are not prepared to see six mines closed in this country just because of the interconnector.
Other countries such as the United States and Spain are investing in coal. At the weekend, it was announced that Spain will receive significant EC subsidies to enable Spanish mine owners to exploit their resources. It will cost twice as much to mine that coal as that which we will be putting under 6 ft of concrete. What a fantastic state of affairs. What are the Government doing about that? No doubt our contributions to the EC will be used in part to subsidies those Spanish pits.
At the end of the day, when the gas has run out, when the coal imports from Siberia and Algeria are rather dodgy and when the price of imported coal has gone through the roof, will those who sit on the Treasury Bench not live to rue the day, along with the rest of us, when British coal was put under a slab of concrete?

Mr. John Evans: This is a unique occasion for me because I can say, with heartfelt sincerity, that it is the first time in almost 20 years in the House that I can follow a Conservative Back-Bench Member and tell him that I enjoyed his speech. I agreed with much of it and look forward to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) joining us in the Lobby tonight. I trust that other Conservative Members who support him will also have the courage to join us in the Lobby. I echo the hon. Gentleman's words that it is still not too late to save the British coal industry if a sufficient number of Conservative Back-Bench Members have the guts to follow the hon. Gentleman's lead.
Just over 12 months ago, the only colliery left in the Lancashire coalfield, Parkside colliery in my constituency at Newton-le-Willows, was gearing up to go into full production in a new multi-million pound scheme. As I said in the House at the time, the miners said that it was the best scheme ever developed at Parkside colliery and that by Christmas the colliery would be making profits worth millions of pounds. Some 80 per cent. of the colliery's output went by environmentally friendly merry-go-round trains direct to Fiddler's Ferry power station, just six miles away. The juxtaposition of the colliery and the power station was a piece of intelligent physical planning that made sound economic sense.
Nearly 800 miners worked at Parkside colliery. The vast majority were young men with families and mortgages. Many of them had worked at two, three or four other collieries in the area which had closed during the previous two or three years. They all thought that they had a good future because Parkside colliery had millions of tonnes of valuable reserves below the ground. The pits had been profitable in each of the previous five years and had a superb and efficient work force. The miners thought that the pits had a future.
Then the axe fell—Parkside colliery was included in the 31 pits to be closed in the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 13 October 1992. As everyone knows, the subsequent outrage that swept the country resulted in the President of the Board of Trade making a statement in the House on 19 October saying that 21 of the collieries would be reprieved and that an inquiry would be launched to save as many pits and jobs as possible. Everyone now recognises the fact that the only job that was considered for saving was that of the President of the Board of Trade.
However, Parkside colliery was one of 10 collieries which British Coal said had no future, and on Friday 23 October British Coal ended production at the colliery, despite the promises made repeatedly by Ministers that there would be proper consultations between British Coal and the miners at the collieries concerned and a proper review of the likelihood of those collieries being saved.
No consultations whatever took place with the miners and no review took place of the collieries. Parkside colliery —which was opened in 1964 and on which millions of pounds were spent last year—is now abandoned. It is a monument to the Conservative Government's folly, which has turned so much of British industry into a graveyard. It is a very sad graveyard.
Although British Coal may have abandoned the colliery, it has not been abandoned by a dedicated group of women who are still fighting to save miners' jobs. I refer


to Parkside Women Against Pit Closures, who launched their campaign to save the colliery on Monday 18 January 1993. The camp which they set up by the side of the A49 at the entrance to the colliery has been "manned" 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Those women are still occupying that site and their behaviour there has been exemplary. They have always co-operated with the local police at Newton-le-Willows and St. Helens, informing them of any events that would take place, whether rallies, demonstrations or whatever. Not a single incident has occurred at the colliery site in the past nine months, nor has there been a single arrest. Indeed, the local police have always co-operated with the women at the site and kept a friendly eye on the camp, particularly through the night.
However, those good relations disappeared in the week beginning Monday 4 October 1993, when British Coal in its wisdom decided to bring in stone to start filling one of the shafts. The women mounted a picket and sought to persuade some of the lorry drivers to turn away and not deliver the stone to the colliery. Although they were supported by many of the lorry drivers, the stone was still being delivered to the colliery. The women stepped up their protest against the filling operation by occupying the colliery pump house on the Thursday night. The pumps were in use, pumping water and methane gas out of the colliery. The women emphasised to British Coal that they would not obstruct access to the pump house or the pumps, or do anything that would affect the machinery. They pointed out that they wanted to save the colliery and see it return to full production.
The following day, Friday 8 October, a British Coal management team arrived and entered the colliery precincts. Later that afternoon, the care and maintenance work force still at the colliery were sent home. Some time after midnight on the morning of Saturday 9 October, the entire pit, the access roads to the colliery and domestic properties near the pit were plunged into complete darkness. All the power had gone. Shortly afterwards, the British Coal management team went to leave the colliery. The women were alarmed at what was happening and asked what was going on, but the British Coal team refused to respond and retreated back into the colliery. The women were particularly concerned about the fate of two colleagues who were left in the darkened pump house well inside the colliery precincts.
Shortly afterwards, a dozen or so uniformed police officers arrived. The inspector informed the women that they were breaking the law and said that they must leave the site or he would arrest them. The women asked the police inspector to inform them which law they were breaking, but that question went unanswered. The women, who always co-operated with the police, said, "Well, if you must have a couple of arrests, we shall volunteer two of our number who can be arrested and that will satisfy the police requirement."
No arrests followed, but at about 2.30 am five vans suddenly pulled up at the colliery and about 45 riot police in full riot equipment, many of them with dogs, arrived at the scene and proceeded physically to manhandle the women to the side of the road. One of the women was bundled into the women's cabin and told that she was

under "cabin arrest". Another was bundled into a police van, driven down the A49 and then dropped at the side of the road.
The riot police moved through the women towards the only man who was with them, and whacked him in the face with their riot shields. That individual was a 25-year-old named Billy Pye, who is a former miner at Parkside, a resident of Newton-le-Willows and a member of the National Union of Mineworkers national executive committee. Fortunately, Mr. Pye was smart enough not to retaliate. If he had done so, I would not like to think what would have happened. Suddenly, the riot police disbanded. The whole incident, from the arrival of the riot police and their leaving, took only five minutes. No arrests were made, so presumably no law was broken.
As the Member of Parliament who represents Newton-le-Willows and the surrounding area, I am entitled to ask why that terrifying and somewhat brutal police action was instigated. Why were nearly 70 police officers used to subdue seven women and one man? Was it not a question of intimidation aimed against the women against pit closures campaign? I am entitled to ask also what was the cost of that police operation, particularly when the Merseyside police authority and the chief constable constantly complain to Members of Parliament of a shortage of resources to undertake ordinary police work.
As darkness gave way to dawn and to daylight, it transpired that British Coal—without notifying or warning the North Western electricity board—had cut the entire colliery out of the national grid. That created a powerful and dangerous reaction, which it is alleged damaged the major substation at the colliery, blacked out part of Newton-le-Willows and caused difficulties for British Rail.
When the substation was examined later by electricity board officials, they allegedly said that it had been left in a dangerous condition. If the women had interfered with the electricity supply, they would have been vilified, arrested and probably sent to jail. British Coal personnel left the colliery on 9 October and no one has returned there since. We were told that Parkside would be one of the collieries offered for sale to interested parties, but it has been abandoned. The only people there now are a couple of civilian security guards and members of the women against pit closures campaign.
My concern now is with what is happening with the pit. Parkside has a major contract to supply methane gas to Crossfields at Warrington. No gas has been pumped to Warrington for many months. No gas at all has been pumped from the colliery since the pit closed on 9 October. I am no expert, and I should like to know what is happening about the build-up of methane gas at Parkside. Is there any danger of an explosion occurring at the colliery, or of gas seeping from the colliery and entering properties in the vicinity?
I have written to British Coal to protest at the completely irresponsible attitude that it has adopted towards Parkside and the rest of the British mining industry. I invite the Minister for Energy to join me in asking British Coal for a report on the events at Parkside on 9 October, and to clarify whether any dangers exist at the mine. The Minister will appreciate that that part of the country has a long history of tragic colliery gas explosions.
The Secretary of State for Employment also represents a Merseyside constituency, and will be visiting a school in Haydock in my own constituency in a couple of weeks. The grandfathers of children there worked in the mining


industry in Haydock, St. Helens and Newton-le-Willows. I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in inviting the chief constable of Merseyside to provide an explanation as to why so many policemen were used in a frightening and intimidatory action in the middle of the night against a handful of women. I hope that he will do so, because Merseyside police and British Coal have a case to answer.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I rise with mixed feelings to speak in this debate. I have much sympathy with the plight of miners who have been made redundant and miners who will be made redundant, for several reasons. My constituency has a history of pit closures and job losses from the mining industry; I am well aware of the significant productivity increases that miners have won from the ground over the past 10 years or more; and I am more than well aware that the structure of mining communities makes it difficult for their members to find work outside that industry.
I am particularly saddened and concerned because Conservative Members feel great loyalty to those miners —particularly members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—who stood up to intimidation and kept the industry moving in 1984–85.
Many important and significant issues have not been addressed by right hon. and hon. Members tonight. There has been much talk of unfair competition from the nuclear and gas industries, but many forget that British Coal is also confronted with competition from imported coal. Many right hon. and hon. Members said that British Coal produces the most competitive coal in Europe, but we do not just live in Europe; we live in the world. The sad fact is that British coal is not always competitive with coal on world markets. It may be more competitive than German or Spanish coal, but not more so than Australian or American coal.
United Kingdom coal generally costs in excess of £40 per tonne. Coal can be landed in this country at £33 per tonne. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average is £26 per tonne, and our competitors in France and Italy—who import a great deal of coal and have virtually no coal industry of their own left —regularly import coal at less than £30 per tonne.
Many right hon. and hon. Members know in their heart of hearts that Britain's geology is too often against us. Some of the largest and easiest seams were worked out long ago, and the American deep mine sector has a far simpler job because its geology is easier and hence its coal is cheaper.

Mr. Hood: The hon. Gentleman appears to be reading the speech that he made last year, and his notes are not up to date. Is he aware that two of the 10 pits currently under threat of closure are producing coal more cheaply than Colombia?

Mr. Oppenheim: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should remember my remarks last year, but this is a new speech. I hope that he will remember its contents next year. Apart from coal from a relatively small number of pits, British coal cannot be produced at such a low cost as that from Australia and the United States. Our larger stockpiles of coal are also a contributory factor in some pit closures.

Mr. George Stevenson: As to the geological problems that British collieries face by comparison with their overseas competitors, is the hon. Gentleman aware that one year before it closed 18 months ago, Trentham colliery in my constituency produced the quickest 2 million tonnes in Europe, and made £7 milllion profit?

Mr. Oppenheim: I tried to make it clear that I am not talking only about European coal. It is not difficult for Britain to be the most competitive coal-producing country in Europe when it is competing against the German coal industry, which we know is hopelessly inefficient, and the small and inefficient coal industries of France and Spain. Our coal industry has to compete in the world market. We cannot be little Europeans and think only in terms of Europe.
The hon. Gentleman says that Trentham is profitable, but he forgets that, until this year, British Coal had significant protection against imports, so it was relatively easy to show a profit.

Mr. Derek Enright: I want to give a practical example to the hon. Gentleman. Since Grimethorpe colliery, which supplied industrial coal, closed down, its customers have had to pay more on the free market. That is nonsense.

Mr. Oppenheim: I should have thought that, if that were so, someone would have bought Grimethorpe colliery by now. If it were so easy to produce cheap coal at Grimethorpe, I find it amazing that nobody began to mine coal there.

Mr. Enright: I accept the hon. Gentleman's amazement. The matter astounded me and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). During the review procedure, machinery was taken out of Grimethorpe and it was almost shut down. That astounded me, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Mr. Oppenheim: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not have a lot of time for British Coal's management, who play a lot of games and are trying to protect their position, but one cannot get around the fundamental fact that, until recently, Government deals made between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board, as it then was, effectively forced the CEGB to buy coal from the NCB and prevented all but a small quantity of supplies from being imported. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true. Until recently, the British coal industry enjoyed significant protection from imports.

Mr. O'Neill: Surely there are two aspects to the matter: first, the price of coal, about which the hon. Gentleman, although there is an alternative to his view, is advancing a strong argument and, secondly, the importance of a national strategy for coal. It is important not only that we have a diversity of fuels in an energy portfolio but that part of that portfolio is exclusively British in character. Our mining industry will soon not be large enough to sustain itself into the next century, despite the fact that we have massive reserves that we could exploit well into the next century. We are getting to the point where we could have diseconomies of small scale rather than economies of large scale. The hon. Gentleman's view is blinkered and his perception is far too narrow.

Mr. Oppenheim: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall do my best to answer those points.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned rigged markets, but if the market has been rigged it has been rigged in favour of British coal. For years after the war, the CEGB was forced by the Government to buy British coal and was banned from buying imports. British Coal benefited further from subsidies that amounted to £20,000 million in the past decade. That was a significant sum, and if the market was rigged it was, until recently, rigged very much in British Coal's favour.
British Coal received further help. Until recently, generators were not allowed to burn gas for power generation in competition with British Coal because it was Government policy not to burn gas for power generation.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoke of diversity, but we have not had diversity in this country. We generated the bulk of our power from two Government-directed sources—nuclear and coal. Other countries benefited from diversity. Japan had an expensive coal mining sector; it closed almost all its coal mines and now buys the cheapest coal and gas on the world markets, as well as having a nuclear sector. The Italians closed most of their pits; they now benefit from buying gas on world markets. We shall not ensure diversity or security of supply by saying that we shall exploit our natural resources without importing energy. That is the best way to create energy insecurity. If cheap energy sources are available on the world market, we should take advantage of them and conserve our natural resources for future use.
If all the pits are closed, we shall still generate 30 per cent. of our electricity from domestically produced coal, which is much more than most other industrialised countries.

Mr. Cormack: Nobody is sensibly suggesting that we should be wholly dependent on British coal. I have not heard any hon. Member suggest that. I have heard time and again the view that we should protect our indigenous fossil fuel industry as a vital ingredient in our energy supplies. My hon. Friend mentioned the management of British Coal. Does he think that they have pursued with vigour their prime duty, which is the defence and promotion of our indigenous fossil fuel industry?

Mr. Oppenheim: No, I think that British Coal has been pursuing its own rather smaller interests, and I am not defending its management.
The hon. Gentleman says that we have not had diversity of supply.

Mr. Cormack: Hon. Friend.

Mr. Oppenheim: Occasionally, one forgets such things, but of course the hon. Gentleman is my hon. Friend.
The reality is that we have not had diversity of supply. For years, under a Government-directed policy, we generated 65 per cent. of our electricity from coal—a ludicrously high proportion from the environmental, economic and energy security points of view. Comparable figures are only 50 per cent. in Germany and 8 per cent. in France. Even the United States, which has access to some of the cheapest coal in the world—far cheaper than the coal to which we have access—produces only 55 per cent. of its electricity needs from coal. If we want to ensure energy

security, it strikes me as totally daft to say that we shall burn our indigenous energy and not take advantage of cheap imported gas or cheap imported coal.

Mr. Cormack: Nobody is saying that.

Mr. Oppenheim: Then I put it to my hon. Friend that this more market-driven system—although it is not market driven enough for my tastes—will result in a balance whereby we generate about 30 per cent. of our electricity from domestic coal, about 10 per cent. from imported coal, about 20 per cent. from gas and the rest from other means, including nuclear. That strikes me as a far more balanced policy than we have had since the war.
We have heard much talk about foreign supplies of energy not being very secure because countries are unstable, but we get almost all our imported coal from the United States and Australia, which both have stable democracies and have had long and friendly links with Britain. We cannot say to them, "I am sorry but we are not importing coal from you any more because you are not stable." That would be ridiculous.
Hon. Members mentioned countries such as Russia and Poland, from which we get a small quantity of coal, and said that we must not buy from them because they are poor, unstable countries and because we cannot rely on them. It strikes me as being an extraordinary policy for people who call themselves socialists to say that we should not buy coal from countries that are poorer than us. That is not much like the brotherhood of man. If we carry on saying to those poorer countries, "We won't buy your products because we can't rely on you," we will end up ensuring that those countries are unstable. Furthermore, such beggar-my-neighbour policies will ultimately beggar ourselves, because unless we buy from those countries what they are best able to sell us, they will not have the resources or the wealth to be able to develop their economies so that they can buy more sophisticated products from us.
Ultimately, such policies lead only to an intensification of political and trade conflicts, and worse conflicts than that. If we constantly say to third-world countries that we will not buy their products because we think that they are unstable, they will have no chance whatever of improving and developing themselves.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House say that we should have an energy strategy. One reason why we have problems in our nuclear sector is that it was part of a Government-directed energy strategy. That should be a warning to us, because the Government directed the proportion of electricity that should be generated by nuclear, and directed that we should buy indigenous technology at all costs.
In the 1960s, the politicians said that we should buy advanced gas-cooled reactors because they were British designed, and rejected cheaper and more proven American-designed pressurised water reactors. By the 1970s, the AGR programme was in predictable trouble. Instead of then taking the advice of the CEGB chairman, Sir Arthur Hawkins, and adopting the American technology, we went for another United Kingdom design, the SGHWR, because it was lobbied for by vested interests. Three years later, that was cancelled.
Because it was state directed, the story of the British nuclear industry is one of enormous waste of resources and scientific talent. What makes it worse is that no one knew


the cost because of the way in which the system was run, until we had to find out during privatisation. The history of nuclear electricity in Britain should be a warning against industrial strategies, or intervention or energy strategies, because, however imperfect the market may be, it is always a great deal less imperfect than the results when those choices and decisions are made by politicians.
I have a great deal of respect for and sympathy with the plight of the miners, but I would put it to them that there is no future to be gained for any industry by protecting it from competition, be it domestic gas competition or foreign competition from imported coal. I welcome the help that the Government have tried to give and the efforts that they have made. My area has benefited from the assisted area status for Alfreton and Ashfield.
I have no sympathy whatever with the position of the Opposition. It is easy to be caring, to bemoan job losses and to call the Government uncaring when one is in opposition. When Labour was in power, it cut thousands of mining jobs in my constituency. During the 1960s and 1970s, Labour Governments shut one pit for every week. They gave the miners who were made redundant an absolute pittance compared to the redundancy payments that we give them today.
Labour also backed the strike in 1984–85. I put it to hon. Members that that strike had a bad effect on the coal industry as a whole. I have no doubt whatever that if it were not for that strike, we would be able to save many more pits than we are saving today. I have no confidence in and no sympathy whatever for the position of the Opposition. I consider their attempts to say that they are caring as nothing more than sanctimonious humbug. They should look to their own far from glorious past in the coal industry before criticising the real efforts of the Government to make the British coal industry competitive.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker has ruled that speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm are restricted to 10 minutes.

Mr. John Cummings: I never thought that I would see the day when my colleagues agreed with a Churchill. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) put on the record the reasons why, and the way in which, the Government should assist the British coal mining industry to achieve a larger share of the market. Because I am governed by the limit of 10 minutes, I shall not enter into the same arguments.
I wish to place on record my admiration for the men at Vane Tempest colliery and the group known as Women Against Pit Closures, who fought a magnificent campaign —the men in respect of the jobs, and the women in support of their menfolk. The men fought valiantly against the intense pressure and intimidation by British Coal, which led to a withdrawal of several thousand pounds for each miner who was eventually declared redundant at Vane Tempest. I salute those men, and the womenfolk who stood by them.
The history of closures in my area is long. Since 1979, we have seen the closure of South Hetton, Horden, Blackhall, Eppleton, Hawthorn, Seaham, Dowdon, Murton and Easington. It would be interesting to hear from the

Secretary of State how much of the £20,000 million was expended on redundancy payments in those collieries. How much of that money remains underground in those collieries? Those collieries are now flooded, their roofs have caved in, and many hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal have been sterilised, not only for this generation but for future generations.
The Secretary of State may well recall the case that was made by Easington district council for the retention of Vane Tempest and Easington collieries. I was delighted to hear this week that British Coal is exporting 100,000 tonnes of coal to Denmark. I understand that the coal is from stocks that remain at Easington colliery. The case was made some three years ago by the district council to the Department of Trade and Industry and to British Coal that they should get off their backsides and explore markets that we knew existed in Europe, and for which European funds were available, to assist with the cost of transportation and shipping.
Nothing was done until after the demise and closure of Vane Tempest and Easington. Lo and behold, out of the blue we can export 100,000 tonnes of coal. I am delighted with that. It may mean extra jobs at Blyth, from where the coal will be exported. It could mean extra jobs at Seaham, should orders continue to be received from abroad. There is a market there, but it had not been tested. No one had the commitment to move into the line of exports until the 11th hour and 59th minute.
We are also left with problems at Easington colliery, which is up for sale. Budge has expressed an interest in taking over the colliery, securing perhaps 600 jobs. I am not saying that I am in favour of privatisation of the industry, but we are talking about 600 jobs. We are talking about a highly skilled and highly motivated work force. We are talking about a sophisticated mine, which, in the past, attracted tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, as the Minister keeps reminding us. There are several million pounds of pumping costs to be met.
For the benefit of hon. Members who do not understand what is happening in Durham, I should say that there are five pumping stations, but no operational collieries. Should the pumping cease at Easington and the other stations in Durham, the whole of Durham's water supplies will be at risk. Serious concern has been expressed by the National Rivers Authority. At Blyth, injunctions may be taken out in future.
The industry has been transformed over the past 10 years. We have had mechanisation, automation, computerisation; we have had reorganisations; we have had combinations. All of that has been done with the co-operation of trade unions and a willing work force. Output has soared by 38 per cent. over the past year. Nothing in any sector of British industry can match it. And the reward? The miners are given the sack and put on the dole in areas where unemployment already tops 20 per cent.—in some, 25 per cent.
Statistics and logical arguments will not, I fear, win the day in the Chamber. Ministers need to have the political will. They must examine practical ways of assisting the indigenous coal market. Can we really rely on the stability of the middle east or of the former Soviet Union? It is interesting to note that 20 Tories have signed a letter against the defence cuts. Do those same 20 Tories truly not believe that we require a home supply of energy for this


and future generations? Will they follow us into the Lobbies tonight to express their anxiety about what could happen if Britain is held to ransom in the future?
We have witnessed the obscenity of the electricity suppliers generating and marketing their own electricity. In their areas they have a monopoly. I cannot shop around and buy from NORWEB or a southern-based electricity company. I have to buy from the north-east, from Northern Electric. It is certainly not a free market.
The legacy of pit closures also worries us. Right hon. and hon. Members must understand what it is like to live in a colliery community. In the past, we were self-sufficient islands. We have colliery housing, now in a deplorable condition in Easington. We will be left a legacy of redundant colliery buildings. English Heritage, uniquely to my knowledge, has expressed an interest in retaining some colliery housing and buildings. My advice to English Heritage is to keep people in the housing and to bring in the money to provide grants to improve the properties and the general environment in which people have lived for many generations next to slag heaps—virtually inside the colliery yard.
We have had marvellous colliery welfare schemes, paid for out of miners' pay packets for generations. They, too, are at risk. Hard-pressed local authorities are in no position financially to take over the many acres of welfare grounds and miners' welfare clubs, tennis courts, bowling greens, cricket grounds and football pitches.
I do not know what will happen in the run-up to privatisation, but I should like the Secretary of State to assure us that these schemes will continue and that the new owners of the pits will be responsible for their continuation.
The Minister has tried to persuade us that the mine workers pension scheme will remain safe in Government hands. I am not sure that it will. I am worried about the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on the miners' pension fund, and I want concrete guarantees in any future Bill to give me the confidence of knowing that the pension scheme is secure.
Ministers must be aware of the effect of coal imports on our balance of payments. Hundreds of millions of pounds are at stake. The Government deficit is running at £50 billion, but we also have an £800 million bill every year for redundancy payments to miners—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My interest in coal is well known in the House and has become more so in recent months. I must declare an additional interest in the coal industry today, as I am now helping Edwards Energy/Coal Investments to reopen mines in south Wales and Yorkshire, where we hope to retain some jobs.
My general interest will continue, and I ask the Government to move forward rapidly on four separate but related aspects.
I believe in the continued importance of coal in Britain's long-term energy policies. I also believe in ensuring that enough markets are retained to sustain a viable mining industry in Britain. We are, after all, sitting

on our own resources. Early steps must be taken to restructure the industry by privatisation, creating a truly competitive market.
In the period running up to privatisation, the licensing of private mines should be undertaken in a way that allows those pits to operate in the private sector.
It is essential that this or any other Government ensure that coal plays a significant part in Britain's long-term energy policy. Although coal may be more difficult to obtain than gas, oil, nuclear or water energy supplies, it is a British resource which remains unaffected by changes in international politics. That could be important in the future. I therefore suggest that a policy decision must be made to retain coal production at viable levels.
I have received today a letter from ICI in which a change is also suggested:
As a first step towards the necessary fundamental review of the electricity market, surely there is an intellectually simple and quick fix that the Government could require as a 40 per cent. shareholder in the Generators? If ICI and other intensive electricity consumers could only gain access to operate Fiddlers Ferry power station under the same conditions enjoyed by PowerGen, an additional 3 to 4 million tonnes of coal a year would be locked into electricity generation, mines would be saved and our electricity pricing problem would be resolved.
So the high energy users feel strongly about the issue.
By privatising electricity and gas before coal, we brought the full force of the competitive fuel market to bear on coal when it was still in no shape to respond to the change. As any undertaking is freed from the control of the state, its management is determined to benefit from the rewards of the private sector—and their new shareholders will accept nothing else. The idea of regulating the markets by means of independent watchdogs has not been a success —indeed, that has been the Achilles' heel of our privatisation programme.
I consider that a market must be wholly free of restrictions, or it must accept some degree of state control. As a Conservative, I believe in free enterprise and in freedom of action and choice. Equally, I believe that the state has a part to play in strategic areas of a nation's well-being. Britain's energy policy is one such area in which the state should retain control over its destiny. By relying on the industrial watchdog principle, we have passed that control to a third party, thereby abrogating the state's responsibility.
In electricity generation there is no justification for the coal-burning electricity generators and the 12 distribution companies recording bigger than ever profits—totalling £3 billion—in a period when coal costs to generators have fallen about 10 times faster than the price of electricity to Britain's domestic consumers. Fortunately, the regulator is now taking a closer look at the power pricing structure with a view to imposing distribution price controls.
I suggest that this is too little, too late. It is like the virtually uncontrolled dash for gas, and it has been another of the problems that resulted from privatising electricity before coal. Realistically, it was at the time in question probably never possible to privatise coal. I hope that the Minister will take action in this market.
Coal stocks are building up. Representing as I do a manufacturing area, I know well that if goods cannot be sold, production cannot be maintained. If everyone else involved in manufacturing industry in Yorkshire had sat on their backsides over the past few years and had not gone out on aggressive marketing campaigns, there would be no manufacturing left in the area at all. If British Coal had


been more aggressive in its marketing, and had become involved in niche markets, many of the mines that are now closing would have a future.
It is outrageous that British Coal can announce one day that it will double imports of house coal and industrial fuel and then a few days later decide to close the very mines that could supply that market. To me as a business woman, that is not good marketing. No wonder British Coal says that the pits have no future, and that it is pessimistic—everyone would be.
If the Government had not given their consent to other gas-fired stations at a difficult time, more tonnes of British coal would be burned and we would have had more of a coal industry left. We have a highly subsidised nuclear power industry, the sales of which are guaranteed. The industry has been allowed to increase its market share from 18 per cent. to—in the near future—around 30 per cent. That leaves 50 per cent. of the market for gas, and 20 per cent. for any other prospects.
British Coal has to be restructured to cut its operating costs and satisfy the changing market conditions. Privatisation is obviously the best way of achieving that, but the four or five new mining companies which are set up must be truly competitive. Competing companies will fight for customers and will do a better job than we have seen in the past. We should ensure that there are several clearly defined, viable and competing coal mining companies. Those companies would then compete in a two-level marketplace with the small but developing mining companies which are already in private hands.
All the companies would be able to supply the large-volume, low-cost United Kingdom electricity generating market if they were given the opportunity to bid into that market. There is some concern that the companies may not have that opportunity.
The specialist domestic and industrial coal markets also can be supplied from controlled cost, low-volume production mines with minimal overheads. Much of the massive investment in the coal mines still exists, and therefore the mines can be run in the future at a much lower cost than they have been.
The British coal industry does have a positive future if we get on with the change now. The industry will be much smaller, but I believe that it will be viable and profitable. It must remain an important sector within Britain's energy policy. Change is with us, and we have to manage that change. Together with Ministers, I will do all that I can to promote and help that change.
However, I believe that the Government have not taken the necessary action that would have ensured that there was a market. I am concerned about how much of our coal industry will still exist when privatisation becomes law next July. There is great concern throughout the country that British Coal will have closed down most of the industry before we get to that stage.
Urgent action is needed to ensure that private companies that are putting in bids to license mines are not brushed aside. Those bids must be looked at carefully, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we have allowed British Coal to be judge and jury in the present set up. If it does not want competition, it will not license mines. That would be a disastrous state of affairs and something should be done about it.
My concerns of last year, and of earlier this year, have not changed. I believe that the concerns which I expressed earlier this year by voting against the Government were

right. I do not like to take that action, but I must tell my right hon. Friend that I shall do the same again this evening.

Mr. Richard Caborn: On 13 October 1992, it was announced that 31 collieries were to close. The House debated that announcement, and instructed a Select Committee to inquire into the decision. Many distortions have been placed on the Committee's recommendations from people both inside and outside the House. I would like to clear up one or two of those points.
It is less than honest of the Government to table to the Opposition motion an amendment which states that the conclusions of the Government's coal review accepted the principal recommendations of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal." The Government walked away from the debate in March this year when they produced their White Paper on a Thursday and had it debated in the House the following Tuesday. Many complained that that was too short a time to examine the 180-page document. Complaints were made also that hon. Members were not allowed to debate and indeed vote on the 39 recommendations contained in the Select Committee report.
I asked the Government through the Liaison Committee and through the Leader of the House whether the Government would table a procedure motion, whereby an amendment containing the 39 recommendations by the Select Committee would be placed before the House. That was denied by the Government. The Government claimed that the majority of the recommendations of that Select Committee were accepted.
There were nine key recommendations which addressed the central question posed by the President of the Board of Trade: "Is there a large market for coal?" That question was answered by the Committee. The answer came from an economic perspective and the Committee produced it. clearly and conclusively. Of the evidence submitted to the Committee, 95 per cent. was in public as were all the hearings. The Committee had a Government majority, and the recommendations were carried nem. con. by the Committee. That should be compared with the Government's inquiry, which was in secret, no oral evidence was submitted and which produced a totally opposite conclusion.
The Government have rejected the nine key recommendations to widen the market for coal. These include a reform of the nuclear levy, a curb on French imports—a subject of which a lot has been said tonight—a restriction on orimulsion use without full gas desulphurisation, a reduction in opencast coal output, and an increase in coal sales to the electricity market by retaining the regional electricity companies franchise. Yorkshire Electricity said that if stability had been kept in the market by the retention of the franchise, the company would have taken 15 million extra tonnes of coal. The Select Committee heard the same from a number of regional electricity companies, with the amount of extra coal varying from 10 to 15 million tonnes.
Further recommendations by the Committee include an extension of coal sales to the industrial and domestic markets, a removal of market discrimination against coal and a curb on the dash for gas.
I challenge the Secretary of State who said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that a curb on gas would


encourage the breaking of contracts. The Committee was privy to information on the 15-year gas contracts that were on a "take or pay" basis. All the recommendations in our report are clearly within the law. The report was not asking the Secretary of State to break any contracts when it recommended a curtailment on followed-through load for combined cycle gas turbines so that coal could take up more base load. The Committee makes clear that there would be no breaking of contracts in terms of "take or pay". I challenge any suggestion that the Select Committee recommendations ask the Government to act illegally. The recommendations, if followed through, would find a larger market for coal.
The Committee said also that no further licences should be given, because the Government should honour all the licences that have been given for gas. If that were not done, in five years the result would be that 25 per cent. of the market for electricity would be produced from gas, an increase from virtually zero in 1992. In 1997 25 per cent. of the market would be displaced to be taken over by gas-powered generation. That is quite significant. The Government have extended that forecast to around 30 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or nearly 30 per cent. of the market. That would close down another five pits.
The Government were also asked to consider the increase in coal stock levels. Had those recommendations from the Select Committee been acted upon, 25 to 27 pits would be operating in addition to the 20 core pits. About 47 pits would be operational in this country. There was nothing to stop the Government doing that, had they followed through what the President of the Board of Trade said to the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to extend the market for coal. From what has been said in the House tonight, it is evident that the right hon. Gentleman gave a similar commitment at a meeting with some of the rebel Back Benchers on 24 March. Clearly, that market for coal has not been widened and is in fact considerably worse now than it was on 13 October 1992. It will continue to be that way unless the Government take action. It is well within their power to do so
The Government throw up their hands and say that they cannot deal with market forces. The Minister for Energy said this afternoon that he was not prepared to determine the market and to apply pressure to create a proper portfolio within the energy market. If that is so, all the work that the Government did and that we did was in vain. The House was deceived because the Government were not prepared to put right that which was wrong.
The problem of the energy industry is that it operates in a rigged market. That market was rigged by the model of privatisation. Not only the Select Committee says that; not only I say that; not only some Conservative Back Benchers say that. Many experts in the industry say that the model of electricity privatisation was fundamentally flawed. It has rigged the market against coal. That means that gas will continue to take a greater share of that market. That will put this country in some jeopardy in the years to come as the price of gas continues to increase.
If the Government do not believe what we say, they should listen to the Energy Intensive Users group, which

includes ICI, the steel industry and British independent steel producers. The group's letter to The Times has already been referred to. Another section of the letter says:
The UK's asset of large efficient coal-fired power stations fuelled by increasingly competitive UK coal is now being squandered, and energy-intensivemanufacturing industry is being strangulated by high electricity prices which have increased by up to 70 per cent. since electricity was privatised.
A steel company in Sheffield, United Engineering Steels, is one of the most efficient and effective. It gave energy prices as a major reason for closing one of its plants in Rotherham. If the Government do not heed the advice of such people in industry, they will create a distinct disadvantage for our manufacturing base. It is bad for miners and mining communities to close pits, but unless we have access to the cheapest form of energy in this country we shall put our manufacturing base at a distinct disadvantage.
The same advice is being given from every quarter of industry in the United Kingdom. The letter from the Energy Intensive Users group continues that the Government have the power
to reform the electricity market so that the declining costs of coal in efficient base-load stations are reflected in internationally competitive prices to electricity-intensive manufacturing industry … In essence these were the recommendations of the trade and industry select committee".
There is a broad consensus that the Government should accept their responsibility to ensure not only that we have a balanced energy policy but that we produce for the nation the cheapest form of electricity. We are denying the nation that because the model of electricity privatisation was rigged against our coal industry.
We have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the cheapest way to produce electricity in the United Kingdom is coal-fired generation. An increase in coal's market share can be managed without any loss of jobs in either the nuclear industry or the gas industry. We need a balanced portfolio. The Government should go back and consider the recommendations that were agreed by the Select Committee, which had a Conservative majority. It was transparent to everyone that there were compelling reasons to vote for the report.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will look yet again at the Select Committee report; it bears close examination and inspection. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is deep dismay, disillusion and anger in the coalfield community. In the village of Huntington in my constituency is the Littleton colliery. Up to now, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) knows only too well, it has featured on no list. It has beaten many records. It has a magnificently dedicated work force. It is the integral, not an integral, part of the community.
When there were rumours about the colliery recently I wrote to Mr. Neil Clarke, as did the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). We received extremely disturbing replies that no guarantees could be given and that the future of the mine was open to doubt and all the rest of it. We have sought an interview with Mr. Clarke and I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood and I will see him together in the next few


days. It is not a party issue in any sense. It is a community issue. Many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents work at the colliery. It is in my constituency.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cormack: No. I have only a few minutes. That colliery is typical of the problem that we are talking about. If it goes, a community will be devastated.
I must confess that I am unimpressed by the performance of the management of British Coal. I have mentioned that in interventions in the House on previous occasions. We want someone to promote, prosecute with vigour and be dedicated to the industry. We want someone who believes in that industry and has a fundamental feeling that we need an indigenous fossil fuel industry in the United Kingdom. We want someone who will leave no stone unturned in seeking to promote its interests. I do not know precisely how Mr. Clarke occupies his time. I make no personal attack on him. However, he certainly has not persuaded me.
One receives press release after press release from British Coal. The keynote is not optimism or determination but pessimism. Running through all the press releases are statements such as, "It is difficult to find markets", "It is difficult to do this or that." Of course it is difficult. But the man has a job. It is not exactly an unpaid job. He should be fighting day in and day out for the industry.
We need to be able to derive our energy from various sources. It is crucial that coal should continue to be the major source. As hon. Members have said so often in these debates, one is to a degree at the mercy and subject to the whim of the international markets and even of international events over which one has no control. In some cases we may rely on countries that are not all that stable. Imports of gas from Algeria have already been referred to.
We have high-quality coal in the United Kingdom, and a lot of it. If we run down the industry, not only do we destroy individual communities, with all the heartache and anguish that that brings and the economic knock-on effects on other industries, but we debilitate and weaken the country in the future. I have seen it happen before. My home town is Grimsby in Lincolnshire. I have seen how the deep sea fishing industry has been destroyed. When I stood as a candidate for Grimsby in 1966 there were many deep sea trawlers going out to sea. I went to sea on one of them for 17 days. I shall never forget it. It was marvellous. I came back with enormous respect for the fishermen.
The coal and fishing industries are similar in many ways; for example, miners and fishermen have to put up with great hardship. Having seen the fishing industry destroyed, I do not want to see our coal industry totally destroyed. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think again. He is a man with some sensitivity. The Government have not performed well on the issue in the past year. I say that with no joy.
I did not vote for the White Paper because I was not persuaded by it. I did not vote for the Government last October because I was deeply distressed. The Government have done nothing to win my vote on this issue. They certainly will not have it tonight. I do not say that with delight. I want to see the Government succeed.
More can and should be done. We do not want any more gas-fired power stations at the moment, and licences for them should not be issued. We want an indepedent inquiry

into Magnox— those aging nuclear power stations— but there has not been one. Something must be done about the French link. Something can be and should be done immediately about opencast. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) referred to the devastating environmental effect that opencast has in a community— I have seen it in my constituency— and although I pay tribute to the landscaping carried out afterwards, for two or three generations of school children areas are devastated. That need not and must not happen.
There are many things that it is within our power to do. If we have the will to do them— and proper and true leadership — we can retain a truly viable and thrusting indigenous fossil fuel industry, a British coal industry, well into the next century.
My hon. Friend is respected in the counsels of the Government and is listened to by the Prime Minister, quite rightly, with care and attention. I appeal to him to talk to the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister and to say to them that over the past year we have not served the industry as well as we should have done.
There is no point in trotting out that £ 20 billion figure and saying that it represents a subsidy towards operational costs, because it does not. It does not represent a massaging of the market; for the most part it is a paying off of the redundancies at the mines that have closed and the cost of the strike. I am not saying that that should not have been done— I wholly support generous redundancy terms for miners— but that £ 20 billion has not been invested in the industry to make it better; it is £ 20 billion put into the industry to pay for the injuries caused to it. It is important that we get our facts right on that and see it in perspective.
Much rests on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tonight. He must show that, in spite of the blemishes and problems of the past year, we are determined to serve the industry better in the future. My right hon. Friend will not get my vote tonight, but I hope that, by his speech, he will earn it the next time round.

Mr. David Hanson: It is an outrage that we are discussing the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, because it shows that the Government have failed completely to fulfil the promises made in the White Paper on the coal industry last year, when the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency and other collieries were threatened with closure. In the past year the Government have given no support to the mining industry, and the motion will get my wholehearted support in the Lobbies.
The speeches of the hon. Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) are a measure of the Government's failure to date. If the Government cannot count on the support of their own Back Benchers who take an interest in this matter, who can they count on?
I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency, which is one of the pits on the closure list. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Employment will wind up the debate, because he knows the colliery well from his former job as Secretary of State for Wales. Indeed, the tunnels of that colliery run under his constituency.
The past year has involved a catalogue of disaster for my constituents and the Point of Ayr colliery, and nothing that I have heard so far has given me confidence for the


future. The colliery was hit hard by the initial closure announcement, but my constituency fought back and presented a 16,000-signature petition to the House. There were letters of support and a protest march in the town of Prestatyn in my constituency. The colliery also received widespread community support from Delyn borough council and Clwyd county council. The case for the Point of Ayr colliery to remain open is based not on emotion but on solid fact.
We have lost 467 jobs in the last year, and are now down to 260. Shortly that will fall to 155, and potential closure has not been discounted. This has caused problems and has had a multiplying effect on employment in my constituency. Although the Point of Ayr colliery was originally included in their list, I hope that the Government will show some common sense and, even at this late stage, will stop the blatantly obvious waste of resources in my constituency.
There is still 10 to 15 years' supply of good, mineable coal available in the north Wales area and in the Point of Ayr colliery which should be invested in the nation's future. We have high-quality coal and a high-quality work force. We have available some of the cheapest coal in Europe, and there is a market at Fiddler's Ferry power station for that coal, if British Coal and the Government will allow it to be sold.
Another feature of the past year has been the uncertainty and continued low morale among my constituents. There has been a drift away from jobs in the coal industry to other jobs because of natural wastage and uncertainty about the future. Despite that, one year later, the Point of Ayr colliery is still producing coal.
The facts showing why the industry should not be sacrificed speak for themselves. The work force in my constituency is second to none and is still mining coal. It is selling coal based on less than £ 1 per gigajoule, among the cheapest in Europe. The miners in my constituency have bent over backwards to improve productivity. In 1987–88, they were producing 3.1 tonnes per man shift; in 1991–92, they were producing 4.5 tonnes per man shift; last year, 8.9 tonnes per man shift; in 1993, in the Point of Ayr colliery— which is threatened with closure and is on the hit list— they can produce 14.7 tonnes per man shift.
At this very moment, the miners are continuing to pioneer the continuous-mining system. The mine has had investment in new machinery, a new work force and new practices, which the miners have readily accepted, and they are now greatly improving productivity. They continue to pioneer roof bolting. Despite the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) about that system, they have developed and pioneered it. They are looking at small domestic markets in the local area to promote their coal.
Today the Point of Ayr colliery generates large profits, well in excess of the investment made in it. The work force have made the changes that they promised, and have bent over backwards to secure the investment needed to produce the goods.
The Government promised to safeguard the future of the coal industry, and in yesterday's edition of The Times it was shown that the Point of Ayr colliery is a valuable resource for the nation. It says:
The government's assessment of prospective coal sales is relatively upbeat.

It goes on to say:
Their faith in the ability of British mines to achieve a further productivity revolution has been reinforced by experience at the Point of Ayr mine, in North Wales. British Coal's experiments there with continuous mining machines for driving roadways, and other innovations, have achieved striking results.
That pit is now due to close— it is on the Government's list— despite the fact that productivity has massively increased and it still has great resources. That it is due to close is a waste and a scandal which will come back to haunt the Government in the future. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. The pit is on the Government's list of pits due to close. If the Minister can tell me that the pit has three or four years' life left, let him do so. If he will not give me that assurance, I will continue to say that the pit is due to close.

Mr. Eggar: rose—

Mr. Hanson: Give me an answer.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman does himself and his constituents no good by scaremongering. Point of Ayr, like all the other pits, goes into the modified colliery review procedure and is considered under the general review process, as he well knows. Point ofAyr was singled out for praise by Boyds for its innovative approaches to mining techniques, and I agree with the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to the miners there.

Mr. Hanson: I wish to be reassured by the Minister. I hope that this evening he can give assurances, not just to that colliery, but to the other 10 on the list. There are still pits which are due to close and about which no assurance has been given to me by Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal, who said only two weeks ago that pits such as Point of Ayr are due to close. Pits such as that have a viable productive future in the industry and I hope and pray that the arguments that I make today will allow the pit to have that viable productive future.
I do not want to scaremonger. I wish to place on record the contribution that that pit has to make. I think that I have more knowledge of my pit and my community's feelings than had the previous Secretary of State for Wales.
There is still time tonight to change. The Government can this evening bring forward policies to offer subsidies to British Coal to create extra sales. They can take action on coal imports and on opencast mining, and to make National Power and PowerGen hold larger stocks of coal. They can take action to secure the future of Fiddler's Ferry because British Coal will continue to supplant coal that is mined in Wales with coal that is mined in Yorkshire and is playing off pit against pit in a reducing market.
There is power and strength in the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. I strongly believe that the Point of Ayr colliery can contribute to the future of the coal industry and to British energy needs, and will be a powerful force in the marketplace in the future.
I shall conclude by simply relating to the Ministers who are present a fax that I received from the Point of Ayr colliery National Union of Mineworkers only this afternoon. It says:
We want to compete and we want to work for a living, mining some of the cheapest coal in the United Kingdom. Support us. We are hard working, we have done everything asked of us"—
and yet they still face potential closure.
Will the Minister assure the House that my pit and others like it will have a future in an energy market for my


grandchildren in the future? I fear that the Government are continuing to slim down the coal industry ready for privatisation. The debate should not be about ownership; it should be about the survival of an industry. My pit has a future. I hope to hear assurances from the Minister about the pit; it has a future. It can contribute, it will contribute, and if people support the Labour party's motion this evening it will have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I begin by joining hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), in paying tribute to the miners in the coal industry for the remarkable gains in productivity that have taken place during the past few years.
Productivity has reached about 9.45 tonnes per man. This is the seventh time in six months that the record has been broken and it means that the output per man shift is now about 36 per cent. greater than it was a year ago. Those are remarkable achievements, but I cannot help asking why those productivity gains did not take place years ago, before the privatisation of the electricity supply industry and before the changes resulting from that legislation.

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Mr. Moss: As I have only ten minutes in which to speak, I shall press on.
British Coal says that there is more to come, with investment in new technology and new mining techniques and systems, resulting in better efficiency and reduced cost. Does anyone seriously believe that those remarkable improvements would have happened without the introduction of competition that we brought about by privatisation of the electricity supply industry?
Interestingly enough, although productivity has increased, mines are becoming safer, with the all-accident rate showing a 19 per cent. reduction on last year. That emphasises that changes in working practices and greater flexibility by the miners can be achieved without necessarily jeopardising safety. I am pleased to note that the Minister emphasised that most important factor when he opened the debate.
That productivity has fed through to a much more competitive coal price, without which there would be an even smaller market for coal than that which we are discussing this evening. The power generators have been able to secure five-year contracts at the lowest real-term prices for coal for many years. It is worth pointing out, however, that the prices are still well above world prices, which remain depressed as a result of over-supply worldwide.
The new contracts will have a positive outcome. PowerGen has estimated that, when those price reductions are passed through in full to the regional electricity companies, electricity prices will decrease by 17 per cent. in real terms in the next five years. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed by all electricity consumers and will largely offset VAT increases on electricity which may or may not be in the pipeline.
While I am discussing price, may I say that it is important to remind the House that the Government accepted the most important recommendation in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report, which asked for a subsidy for coal in the electricity supply market. It set

conditions up to an extra 16 million tonnes of coal above the contracted totals of 40 million, limited to five years until the year 1998. That subsidy was designed to bridge the gap between the cost of production of British coal arid the world market price. Although it is true that very few additional sales in the electricity supply market for coal have resulted, even with that handsome subsidy, the Ellington colliery agreement with Alcan's own power station at Lynemouth is very welcome.
Much mention has been made in tonight's debate of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report and its recommendations to secure an additional market for coal burn in this country. I believe that the Government tackled those recommendations fairly, honestly and with strong counter-arguments in their White Paper. I propose, in my limited time this evening, to highlight three only of those points to show that there are no easy solutions that we can pull off the shelf, dust down and implement tomorrow.
First, I shall discuss the question of coal imports. It is important to differentiate between imports of steam coal and those of other types of coal. Those have been reduced to the minimum contractual levels that have been in place for some time, currently less than 1 million tonnes a year. With about 45 million tonnes of coal— about a year's supply— at the pit head and the power stations, it is obvious that there is little or no need for further imports either the short or long term.
Secondly, let me discuss the environmental recommendations in the report. Orimulsion has been mentioned several times this evening. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry report recommended that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution should insist on flue gas desulphurisation as a condition of using orimulsion, but it is not so environmentally dirty as claimed.
The power stations at Ince and Richborough emit less than half the amount of dust and less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than they would if they were burning coal or heavy oil. In addition, the amount of sulphur dioxide that the stations are permitted to emit is no more than was allowed when they burnt oil. It seems to me that putting a limit on heavy fuel oil would either put up the costs of generation and increase electricity prices to the consumer or close down the stations altogether.
The other environmental issue that was mentioned by the Select Committee report was that of flue gas desulphurisation. However, although the report asks for an additional 2 GW to be insisted upon, it later states:
Deciding now to install more FGD would not raise British Coal's sales in the five-year period up to 1998, and would not in itself cause the generators to use more British coal at all.
In addition, the fitting of FGD will not in itself solve all the environmental problems of coal-fired power generation. In the future it is more than likely to be increasingly constrained by new emission limits not only for sulphur dioxide but also for carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Although the power generators have been given stringent emission targets for sulphur dioxide, it is worth reminding the House that the targets can be achieved by other means, especially by turning to combined cycle gas burn, which produces no sulphur dioxide and about half the carbon dioxide emissions.
Finally, I wonder whether the people really understand what flue gas desulphurisation means and what effect it will have on the environment as a whole. We will need to quarry thousands and thousands of tonnes of limestone. The main sources of limestone are the Peak District


national park in the Derbyshire dales and the national parks-in various parts of the country. Does anyone think that we will really quarry huge amounts of limestone from those areas of natural beauty? There would be a massive increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic trundling backwards and forwards from the quarry to the power station and, at the end of all that, we would produce enormous quantities of gypsum for which there was no market. In a recession, particularly in the building industry, I do not think that we would find a market for that gypsum. Instead of just having mounds of coal at our coal tips, we would have mounds of white gypsum on our landscape as well.
The report held out the hope that clean coal technology could provide a substantial additional market for coal and that the technology was just around the corner. I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in answer to a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). The hon. Member for Livingston said that we could meet our environmental emission targets now and in the future using clean coal burn technology. However, the only reference to that technology in the Select Committee report is on flue gas desulphurisation, to which I have already referred.
Clean coal burn technology is well into the future. It is likely that integrated gasification combined cycle gives us the best possible solution to the problem, but that is many years down the road. The only plant in Europe now is a demonstration plant and it is light years away from being proven economically.
It seems ironic that in future we will be producing coal to produce the methane which we will then send to our combined cycle gas turbines. It may be that gas stations in the future could have coal gasification bolted on.
What are the Government doing about clean-coal technology? They are currently funding a portfolio of about 56 projects with a contract value of more than £ 114 million. The Department of Trade and Industry's contribution to the total is about £ 24 million. In addition, there is a wide range of coal research projects in United Kingdom universities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I apologise for missing the first speech today, but that was caused by my commitments on a Select Committee. I was fortunate— if that is the right word— to hear the second half of the Minister's speech. I am pleased to see that the Minister is almost in his place. When someone meets the Minister, he is always pleasant and polite and gives the impression that he is listening to what is being said to him. However, I always judge people by what they do rather than by what they say. Having listened to the second half of the Minister's speech today, all I can say is that it was full of evilness. [Interruption.] I am choosing my words carefully. It was full of evilness for the coal industry and communities such as that in which I am proud to have been born and bred.
We have heard some wonderful speeches from Conservative Members, but we have lived through what has been happening in our mining communities. I must tell the Minister, as pleasantly as I can, that he received a

drubbing from his hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and he deserved every bit of it. I shall try hard not to add too much to that, but he must excuse me if I come back to it now and again.
I joined the mining industry in 1964 as an apprentice engineer with a great future in a great industry. Within four years, as a qualified engineer, I moved down to the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I worked there for 19 years before coming here. I can remember when mining families were brought from all over Britain to the midlands coalfield in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was the most cosmopolitan coalfield of them all. It always seems a misnomer to me because there is no such thing as a Nottinghamshire miner. Nottinghamshire miners come from all over the country and include Geordies, Scots, Irish and Lancashire men. Had it not been for the "Plan for Coal" in 1974, some of the pits in Nottinghamshire would have been closed. That includes the pit at which I worked, 011erton, which is now one of the top pits in the industry.
The 1974 Labour Government had faith and confidence in the coal industry. I can remember making my maiden speech on 8 July 1987. I reminded the House of the famous quotation from Nye Bevan who said that Britain is built on coal and surrounded by fish. Now all the fish have been given away. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) told us about the time he stood as a candidate in Grimsby. He said that he used to watch the boats going in and out. The only thing one can watch now is fishermen burning their boats because the industry has been destroyed. Now, the Government are continuing their obsession with destroying the coal industry, too.
In 1979 there was a change of Government. The new Government did not have the same confidence in the coal industry. [Interruption.] I am not surprised to hear a "Huh" from Conservative Members. Baroness Thatcher is not a lover of the coal industry and she set out to wreak revenge on the industry. The Government sought revenge not against Arthur Scargill, but against Joe Gormley, then the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. He was president of the union during the miners' strikes in 1972 and 1974. It is the 1974 miners' strike that the Government now see as the reason for their defeat in the 1974 election, and they have been seeking revenge against miners, their families and their communities ever since. That is the truth.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ethnic cleansing.

Mr. Hood: There has been some ethnic cleansing in our industry.
I have not come here just to defend my union or colleagues who presently work in the industry or the many thousands who have lost their jobs. I certainly have not come here to listen to comments about Arthur Scargill. Something must be said in this place in answer to what has been happening. We have heard some pontificating about the miners' strike and what happened as a result of it. Make no mistake, the strike was planned. It was planned not by Arthur Scargill, the NUM or the miners, but by the Tory Government. Its seeds are to be found in the Ridley plan of 1979.
In 1981 the Government were determined to get what they wanted out of the industry. They went for it in 1981 but had to pull back because they did not have the goods to do it. They did a body swerve, similar to the one they did last year. They decided to improve the facilities for exporting coal in 1981. They built up the coal stocks, relied


on nuclear power and pushed through their trade union legislation, supported by the Liberals. They got ready for 1984.
A Select Committee met a week before the start of the miners' strike in 1984. Ian MacGregor, the man who walked about with a bag over his head, was asked about the effect that the overtime ban was having on the coal industry at that time. As he walked out of the Select Committee, he said that things would change within a week, and they did. Within that week the closure of Cortonwood and the other four collieries was announced. It was the provocation necessary to start the strike.
I will not stand in the House without defending miners and their communities, especially when I hear the trash that comes from Conservative Members who talk about the 1984 miners' strike as the cause of everything that has happened. The 1984 miners' strike was planned and perpetrated by the Government. The hon. Member who was the Minister with responsibility for coal in 1984 knows what happened.
I have never before mentioned in the House that during the miners' strike my car was petrol bombed, my garage was burnt down, my wife was attacked in our house by masked men and my son was assaulted five times. I wrote to my Member of Parliament, who at the time was the hon. Member for Sherwood, Mr. Andy Stewart. I told him of those events and asked him how he could help. He told me to go back to work. That was the help I got from a Tory Member of Parliament.
When the closure of 31 pits was announced in the past year, the Government did not bother to listen. The people said no, the mining community said no and even some Conservative Members said no, but the Government turned away, said that they had to have another look and bought time. We heard the story of the hon. Member for Davyhulme, who was persuaded to accept promises at the meeting with the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. Nothing has been said since.
The Government have closed 21 pits, 20,000 miners are out of work and 60,000 other jobs have been lost. Now they are planning to close another 15 pits, to sack another 20,000 miners and to forfeit another 60,000 jobs. When I refer to the Minister's speech as evil, I mean just that. None of us from the mining communities is surprised at what has happened. Nothing that the Government could do would surprise us. Conservative Members accuse those of us who stand up and talk to them with the contempt that they deserve of being sanctimonious, but we have lived through the problems and will again. We wil not lie down. We will fight the decisions and say "no" and "no". If the Government do not change their ways, the people will change the Government.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I come to the debate with none of the experience that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has of the mining industry, save that in 1987 I unsuccessfully fought the seat of Hemsworth, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) bears witness, although it was not he that I fought but his late and lamented predecessor, George Buckley. Holding that seat prior to Mr. Buckley was a fine Labour Member, Alec Woodall, who represented all that was best about a mining Member of Parliament. Sadly, he was not

permitted to remain as a Member of Parliament by the Labour establishment in that constituency because it thought that he was too moderate.

Mr. Enright: That is an absurdity, sunshine.

Mr. Garnier: No doubt the school teacher who has replaced him will be as good as he can. I gather that the hon. Gentleman is a Euro-consultant, but no doubt we will hear more about that.
I shall briefly refer to the Government's policy on energy, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister— or the Prince of Darkness as he must now be called— has described as that of ensuring secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices and m a form that people and business want. It is often forgotten in debates of this sort that we are seeking to satisfy customers as well as those who work in the industry. As a country with a diverse range of energy resources— oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy, plus a considerable potential for renewables— it is right that Britain should take advantage of those resources as best we can and to ensure that the policies that are to be implemented will achieve that.
There has been considerable progress since 1979, when the Conservative Government inherited a largely state-owned energy sector. Since then, the Government" s policy has been one of progressive liberalisation that has brought major benefits to the industry and its customers — a group of people so often forgotten by Opposition Members. I shall briefly outline those benefits. North sea oil and gas have been freed from state control by the abolition of the British National Oil Corporation and the privatisation of British Petroleum and British Gas. Production is expected to reach a second peak this decade, keeping the United Kingdom alone in the EC as broadly self-sufficient in energy.
Since British Gas was privatised in 1986, domestic gas prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms and industrial prices by 36 per cent. in real terms. To extend competition, the gas monopoly to supply has been reduced from 25,000 therms to 2,500. We have a manifesto commitment to reduce progressively British Gas's monopoly of the retail gas market to give smaller users the same rights as big firms.
In the short term, since electricity privatisation in 1990, there has been substantial progress towards improved efficiency, greater competition and greater consumer choice. The standards of service for each regional company have already brought dramatic improvements in customer service and have recently been strengthened by the electricity regulator. All the regional supply companies have announced price freezes or cuts for this year. Under the legislation that privatised the electricity industry, the monopoly threshold, below which the regional electricity companies have an exclusive right to supply, is to be reduced from 1 MW to 100 kW in 1996 and abolished in 1998. That will ensure progressive development of competition in the supply business.
It is widely recognised, on the Conservative Benches at least, that energy policy must take account of the fact that markets are sometimes inhibited from working effectively. Where full competition is not yet possible, independent regulators have an important role to play in protecting the interests of the customer by administering price controls that encourage industries to become more efficient, by enforcing standards of services and by encouraging


competition. However, the Government have not absented themselves from responsibilities in the energy industry. The existing bodies include the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels plc, Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear, Northern Ireland Electricity and, one hopes, British Coal in the future if it is privatised.
The Government are still involved with the consents for power stations and overhead lines. They are involved also in issuing licences for oil and gas exploration and production in line with the nation's best interests, in maintaining safety standards across the energy sector and in protecting the environment through sustainable development, which includes a commitment to energy efficiency, work on renewables and involvement in the funding of some areas of energy research.
I ask the Opposition parties to bear in mind that while, over the past 14 years, the Government have been actively engaged in the energy industry, producing an effective energy policy to benefit the people of Britain, the Opposition parties have been somewhat at sea.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the article by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for energy, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), in Lloyd's List on 22 October when the hon. Gentleman admitted that the Labour party will not have a comprehensive energy policy in place until the 1995 Labour party conference. I should have thought that the people whom Labour represent have a right to expect the Opposition to have in place an energy policy that can be examined and criticised, or praised, depending on one's point of view.
We are entitled to know how many pits the Labour party would keep open if it came into government. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."] We are told that every pit would be kept open. The party that says that is the party that closed more than 300 pits and sacked 220,000 miners in the 11 years before we came to power. Which commercial contracts would the Labour party interfere with to achieve the additional sales that it claims would exist? How many other jobs in the energy industry would Labour be prepared to sacrifice to satisfy the coal industry? Those questions continue to be unanswered.

Mr. Skinner: I will answer those questions.

Mr. Garnier: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak in due course. We have yet to have answers to those questions from the Opposition and it is about time that we had them.

Mr. Derek Enright: I discovered that a very good friend of mine taught the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) when he was at school. I must rebuke my friend for his failure when I next see him. One would normally expect from one of his pupils a speech that was sparkling, logical and incisive. Instead, we got the bland central office line, right down the line and all the way
Before the general election, the Rothschild bank, distinguished for taking on broken ex-Chancellors, made an assessment of the pits. Frickley pit in my constituency was in the top 10 profit-making pits, so there seemed to be no doubt about its future. One short year ago, the President of the Board of Trade by his announcement plunged

Frickley pit into a loss-making position, although it was not loss making in actuality. One short year ago, that pit was put on his list.
It has not been a short year for the families who work in Frickley; it has been a lifetime for them. One of the burdens of guilt that the Government must bear is what they have done to thousands of mining families as a result of the uncertainty in the pits— uncertainty which they have created and which continues at this moment.

Mr. Garnier: indicated dissent.

Mr. Enright: I wish that the hon. Gentleman was living as a Hemsworth miner and was subjected to that treatment. It is not a pleasant position and has not been helped by the actions of the Government and of those who support them in any way.
This year, not 500 yards from the comprehensive school in Featherstone which I helped to set up, we celebrated the centenary of the Featherstone massacre when two totally innocent people were shot. It is clear that they were innocent because they were shot in the back when they were a considerable distance away from the disturbances. They were shot because miners were on strike. The miners were on strike because pits were being closed as a result of overproduction— the reason for the car strikes in the late 1940s and early 1950s. There is a bit of overproduction, so let us have a strike.
We all remember the Ford strikes. Red Robbo was the most useful instrument of management who ever existed. When there was overproduction, the management would say, "Let us make a strike and save a bit of money." The same thing happened 100 years ago and that is what the Government want to take us back to. The mines were private then. Lord St. Oswald operated them and I have no doubt that his successor will operate them once again. Standards and safety will be cut again. The only thing that brought the mining industry advances in technology and real advances in safety was nationalisation. I am not ashamed to say that loud and clear.
We talk of productivity— the sudden burst of productivity, as the Conservatives would have it. That is not true. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is not still here. He made exactly that statement at an all-party energy meeting, which you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and he was rebuked for it at the time by Lord Haslam. Lord Haslam is no Maoist or Trotskyite; he is a solid, card-carrying Tory. However, he rebuked the President of the Board of Trade because we have had constant increases in productivity. The biggest increases in productivity have come since nationalisation. It is important to remember that it is a geometric progression. It is also important to remember the prize of safety that came with it.
We have a problem with management— here I agree with some Conservative Members. We have a crisis in management generally in this country, not only in the management of British Coal. The hon. Member for Harborough mentioned my consultancies. I have worked in Africa and on the continent, and I have worked with many private firms. I am bound to say that the quality of management in continental firms, in American firms and in Japanese firms, above all, is infinitely better than the quality of management in the United Kingdom. We must face that problem.
It is no good saying that we lose productivity because of the social chapter; it is no good saying nonsense like that. We lose productivity and competitiveness because we have poor management. One only has to listen sometimes to the Confederation of British Industry and to the Institute of Directors to realise that at the root of the British problem is short-termism. That is absolutely encapsulated in the policy of hiving off British Coal to private enterprise here, there and everywhere. I stress the word British; I do not mean Barkers coal or Aztec coal.
It is an interesting exercise to look at the firms that are bidding to take over British Coal. When Frickley is affected, I shall advise my constituents about which firms to back and which not to back. Despite what has been said today, some firms have a most appalling record on safety and an appalling record of exploitation, whereas other firms are better. There will be a hotch-potch of firms involved and it will be difficult to choose between them.
I have two specific questions for the Secretary of State for Employment and I should be grateful if he would take notice of them. My first question concerns redundancy. Redundancy is being used by management at the moment in a way that leaves people not knowing where they are — a very cruel way. I know that the Secretary of State does not have direct control over the matter, but I also know that he has the ear of British Coal. I hope that he can impress the following on British Coal. A man may be offered redundancy terms one day and may then consult his family about those terms. He may go back a month later and say that he accepts the terms. To say, "That is not on offer now; it was only on offer if you took it straight away", is insensitive, to put it at the mildest.
The second question concerns the review procedure. When Grimethorpe in my area came under the review procedure, it was a review in title only. What happened was that the machinery began to be brought up straight away and faces were closed. That is not a proper review procedure. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State in his winding-up speech would give a guarantee that it will be a genuine review procedure, and that faces will not be closed and machinery will not be taken out. The men will then know that an honest review is taking place.
My next point concerns competition. One factor that has not been mentioned is gas. Let us recall how gas came to be sold to the electricity supply industry. British Gas did not want to sell the gas. It might have been willing to sell, but only at a commercial price. Hon. Members will recall that the electricity industry said that it did not want to pay the commercial price, but something lower. Ofgas made British Gas, against its commercial judgment, sell gas at a lower price. If that is not a rigged market, I do not know what is. The question needs to be addressed seriously.
There should be a combined energy policy towards which we should be working. In principle, the Government are not against interference in the market; one only needs to think of how they intervened in the nuclear market. If that is not interference or a deliberate rigging of the market, I do not know what is. The Government may be justified in interfering— I am not arguing about the rights or wrongs of the case— but the fact is that they did it.
The Government must look to their laurels. They must start to treat the miners fairly, protect their interests and declare that they will do so now.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). I cannot claim the distinction of having been taught by him or one of his friends—

Mr. Enright: Shame.

Mr. Clappison: I have no doubt that my classical education would have been a great deal better if I had been.
It has become clear among my colleagues— those who feel unable to support the Government and those who, like me, will support them— that there is sympathy for and recognition of the plight of the miners and the mining communities. I recognise the strength of feeling welling up within the hon. Member for Hemsworth which leads him to his passionate defence of the mining community of Hemsworth, which he represents so vigorously. There is no absence of fellow feeling in my party for the mining industry.
My contribution to the debate is to highlight one aspect of the mining communities which has not been dealt with sufficiently, if at all, tonight except in the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), but I first wish to draw attention to the motion and the basis on which it was tabled.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I believe that he put the case far too high, especially when he charged the Government with fraud. I cast my mind back to last October when the Government had to face a difficult situation: coal stocks were piling up and there were problems with contracts with the electricity generators. The Government have not been impervious to all that was said then or to what has happened since. The hon. Member for Livingston said that everything that has happened since last October was predetermined, that the Government have not listened and, in his words, that it has all been a fraud. There is clear evidence that that is not so and that the Government have listened carefully.
I also listened with great interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). He spoke about the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Like all those who took an interest in the matter at the time, I remember that the cry in the House was for the Select Committee to be given a role. It was given a role and it made some recommendations. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central mentioned some of them, but he did not mention that which provides clear evidence of the Government's good faith. I refer to the Government's commitment to provide a subsidy. It was one of the Committee's central recommendations, no matter how one views the report.
Recommendation 228 states:
We recommend that the Government provide a subsidy to the generators…to burn up to 15 million tonnes of deep-mined BC"—
British coal—
per annum above the quantities of 40 million tonnes falling to 30 million tonnes
as from April next year. On any reading, that is a substantial commitment. It came with a substantial price tag, and I remind the House that that price tag was put on it by the Select Committee. It was a price tag of £ 500 million which, as the Select Committee envisaged, would fall on the taxpayer or come from diversion of moneys from the fossil fuel levy. That is clear evidence of the


Government's commitment and their preparedness to adopt the Committee's recommendation. I should not dismiss the subsidy out of hand, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Clearly, it will have a significant role to play in some areas—

Mr. Michael Clapham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as time is limited. I shall be brief. If he were to read a little more of the report, he would learn that the recommended subsidy was recommended in the context of an extension of the franchise market to 1998. That is an extremely important point which the Government failed to take on board.

Mr. Clappison: I take great consolation from the fact that the subsidy is proving valuable for the miners of Ellington. I welcome today's announcement that the subsidy will be extended to exports. I hope that the Liberal Democrats pass on the good news to the people of Ellington. They dismissed it out of hand today, but it will clearly be very important to the people there.
As I said, I should not adopt the approach of the hon. Member for Livingston because he puts the case far too high. Nowhere does he put the case higher than in the motion, which mentions the effect of the closure of the pits on the coalfield communities. It states that the House
regrets that closure of these pits will destroy the economies of the coalfield communities".
It will, of course, have significant implications for the miners who face redundancy and for their families, but to talk of destruction is to paint a false picture of the coalfield communities.

Mr. Cummings: It is true.

Mr. Clappison: I sympathise with the miners who have lost their jobs, but the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) must understand that even if the Opposition's alternative— such as it is— were implemented fully, it would not increase the numbers employed in the mining industry. From personal knowledge of his mining constituency, the hon. Gentleman will know that employment in mining has declined this century.
There were more than 1 million miners before the first world war; 700,000 men were employed in the mines at the end of the second world war when the industry was nationalised. At that time, it was correct to talk of coalfield communities being dependent on only one industry. In those days, the mining industry was the lifeblood of those 700,000 people, but things have changed since then.
The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in those communities, under Conservative and Labour Governments. The picture is all too familiar in other European Community countries and in the United States: such communities have suffered from being over-dependent on one industry. A very important point that has arisen—

Mr. Cummings: There is now no industry in my coal communities.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is important that he and all Labour Members with mining constituencies remember that the Government have given

substantial assistance worth £ 200 million, which has not come the way of other communities facing redundancies in this or any other recession.

Mr. Cummings: The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Mr. Clappison: It is not cloud cuckoo land, and the people who will benefit will not regard it as cloud cuckoo land. Those communities are in many instances part of assisted areas. They also benefit from British Coal Enterprise and the training and enterprise councils. Nine thousand of the 18,000 miners who were made redundant last year have found jobs or been offered training. That is not nothing; it is not to be dismissed out of hand. The coalfield communities desperately need diversification and inward investment more than anything else. That is the future for the coalfield communities and to suggest otherwise is to look back and ignore the positive future.
I agree with the hon. Members who have spoken of the very great qualities of the people in the mining communities. They are no strangers to hard work and they have many enterprising skills. Their entrepreneurial spirit has clearly been shown in the success of the many thousands of projects generated by British Coal Enterprise. They now need support. The message from my colleagues who have sympathy for the mining industry is that we are looking for every ounce of support that the Government can give to such areas to bring about much-needed diversification and to give people the hope that they can only gain from the enterprise culture and inward investment. The days when the mining industry dominated those areas and was their sole source of income are long gone.
Those of us who know the areas— many Conservative Members do, and have great sympathy with them— wish the Government every success, and urge them forward in every possible way. We hope that all the agencies and all the leadership provided by British Coal Enterprise can be drawn together, so that the people make a great success of all the opportunities that are coming forward. Conservative Members believe in the spirit and abilities of those miners and those communities —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) must live in cloud cuckoo land.
I begin by welcoming the subsidy for Ellington colliery, which is just outside my constituency; many of its workers live in the constituency. Perhaps, as we have been told this afternoon, the subsidy will last for only 15 or 18 months, so I wonder what will happen in 18 months' time. I am a bit worried about what will happen to the colliery, because there are so many possibilities for opencast mining— I shall talk about that later. I am worried about what will happen to Ellington colliery after the new agreement signed with Alcan has been going for 18 months. It will be interesting to see whether another deal is struck, and I shall explain later why I think that that may not happen. The deal with Ellington could be just a one-off shot. Alcan is getting a cheap form of energy; it is being subsidised with a cheap tonne of coal to keep the power station burning.
We have heard some passionate speeches about the independent review procedure from hon. Members with pits in their constituencies that are about to close. As I said to the Minister earlier, in my experience the review procedure is not worth the paper it is written on. The Secretary of State for the causes of unemployment was the Minister responsible for the coal industry when my local colliery, Bates's colliery, went through the procedure. Stourton colliery was the first to go through the procedure, and Bates's was the second. We went to London and put a case second to none. There was a Conservative appointee in the chair, yet at the end of the week, when we had put the case for Bates's colliery, he delivered his judgment that on the evidence that he had heard the colliery should stay open for another two years to prove whether the seam that we recommended was workable.
We were jubilant, we put the flags out and opened the bottles of champagne. But that did not last two weeks. Within two weeks Ian MacGregor and his cohorts on the board at the time announced that Bates's colliery was to close. So I warn my hon. Friends not to place too much hope on the review procedure; it is simply a dark horse. If there is anything here to do with the prince of darkness it is the colliery review procedure. It has no strength and no legal force. It is up to the coal board whether it wants the colliery to stay open or to close.
I remember going to see Lord Walker, who was a Minister at the time, and he said, "Put your colliery through the review procedure. It is a new procedure that we have just worked out with NACODS." We did. Lord Walker said that the colliery would stay open if that was the decision made by the review procedure. He gave us a guarantee, but we lost it.

Mr. Skinner: Then he took the Maxwell money.

Mr. Campbell: Indeed, he took the Maxwell money.
The Government have hit the coal industry on the head with a sledgehammer. Subsidies to the nuclear industry amount to £ 1.3 billion. As we argued earlier, if the coal industry had even half that money we could practically give our coal away— what is left of it. I read in the paper the other day that the Magnox reactors are to be demolished, but God forbid— new ones are to be built. If we got rid of Magnox tomorrow we could put 9 million tonnes of coal into the coal-fired power stations. But the Government are going the whole hog on nuclear power, although they have not got the thermal oxide reprocessing plant off the ground yet. They cannot even reprocess the damn stuff.
Opencast mining is a big worry for us in the north east. We have only two collieries; one has a bit of a guarantee, but it looks as though the Government's sledgehammer will send Wearmouth sliding down the slippery pole. Unfortunately, opencast mining is a great threat. Last week I asked the Minister what opencast reserves there were in Northumberland and Durham, and I received the following written answer:
British Coal has informed me that, as at March 1993, total reserves of coal estimated to remain unworked in approved opencast sites in Northumberland, Durham and Tyne and Wear were 16,696 million tonnes."— [Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c.432.]
In Northumberland there are already 12 applications waiting to be processed, so in addition to those approved amounts there are more millions of tonnes to come.
I fear that the whole of the north-east is likely to be dug up from one end to the other for opencast mining. That is my fear for Ellington colliery. I hear whispers, but I have not been told officially— the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) might have been told officially, but I have not— that Northumberland county council is talking secretly to an American firm about a plan to build a coal-fired power station in Northumberland. What does that say about the marketing side, if an American firm wants to build a brand-new coal-fired power station in Northumberland? Why are British Coal and National Power not doing that? Why is it left to the Americans? I have just given the House the reason; it is the abundance of opencast coal. That will be the fate of the collieries in the north-east, and that is one of the reasons why the Government want to close them. Clearly opencast coal is in competition with deep-mined coal; it is cheaper to mine and there are subsidies. At least 80 per cent. of opencast coal goes to the power stations.
Imports of coal have increased dramatically over the past two years. The cost to our balance of payments is £ 700 million. As has been said before, that money would enable us to avoid putting VAT on fuel for old people. National Power gave evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee last year that the average price of imported steam coal was £ 35.50 per tonne. A contract had been offered at £ 36 a tonne, yet the DTI said that British coal was not competitive. Boyds' claim was even worse. The report said that British deep-mined coal cost three times as much as United States, Australian and South African coal. Of course, the Government were head over heels with Boyds when they commissioned it to do a job on British mines— and that is what it did. However, what Boyds did not say at the time was that the United States coal industry receives $700 million in subsidies for research and development. Australian mining receives a subsidy of a 150 per cent. tax rebate on research and development. There is also a subsidy to transport coal from the mine to the port. Again, I cannot find out what the figure is, but there is a tax rebate and, again, Boyds did not say. South African mining receives 10 per cent. subsidies. If we had such a subsidy, as Arthur Scargill has rightly said many times, we could give our coal away.

Mr. Quentin Davies: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). He always speaks with particular eloquence on any matter concerning his constituency or the region of his constituency, and of course he speaks with passion and knowledge about the coal industry. The only thing that is surprising about the debate— it must cause the hon. Gentleman great distress— is how little Labour Members who spoke with such feeling about the coal industry have been supported by the main body of the Labour party. If there had been a debate on this subject — [Interruption.] I thought that I was touching a sensitive nerve. I see that I am proved right on that if on nothing else.
If there had been a debate, as there frequently was, on this subject at any time over the first three quarters of our century, the Opposition Benches would have been packed with Labour Members eager to defend what they saw as the interests of their industry. Everything changes, including the coal industry.
The important thing, however, is how we adapt and respond to change. I was one of the many Conservative Members who felt great concern and disapproval last year at the manner in which British Coal was addressing change, and particularly the manner in which it proposed to dismiss a large number of employees, many of them hard-working, long-serving and loyal, at 48 or 72 hours' notice. That is no way for a humane and responsible employer to behave. I was extremely glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends, after little hesitation, ageed with that view and gave instructions to British Coal accordingly. In the same spirit, I welcome the Government's move to smooth the transition of British Coal to the new market conditions in which it finds itself, and I greatly approve the Government's decision to use taxpayers' money to subsidise British Coal in the short term.
We have already heard an eloquent account of the extremely useful subsidy that Ellington pit has received to enable it to carry forward a major contract with Alcan. That is very satisfactory. But there is all the difference in the world between deciding to smooth the path of transition for a public sector industry for which the Government bear ultimate responsibility and a decision to persuade all those who work in the industry that they can continue as though nothing had changed in the world and induce in them an entirely false sense of security. That would be a thoroughly irresponsible and inhumane course to adopt. The Government are absolutely right not to accede to the blandishments not only of the Labour party but of certain of my colleagues who urge them to go in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) appeared to suggest that the Government should permanently distort the economy to subsidise the coal industry and ensure that the industry continues to have a guaranteed market for a given amount of coal, irrespective of the price of that coal or the demand for it. That cannot be sensible.
As in other matters, the Government have a clear responsibility to ensure that the country continues to enjoy the lowest possible energy prices and the greatest possible security of supply. If we allow ourselves, for whatever sentimental or political reasons, to be deflected from that objective, we shall not do a good day's work for the country. We shall certainly not do a good day's work for employment. If we have anything less than the most favourable energy prices, we shall add, perhaps fatally, to the costs of energy-using sectors throughout the economy and we shall endanger employment in many industries throughout the land. That would be an extremely foolish and destructive thing to do.
There is a very popular and, at first sight, perhaps, seductive view that, in order to secure the cheapest supply of energy possible, the Government should be devising a national energy policy and deciding exactly what proportion of investment should go into the different sectors of the energy industry and rigging the market effectively to provide for that. Superficially, that might be an attractive view to some hon. Members, but it needs to be considered very carefully indeed because it rests on the extraordinary assumption that the Government have superior knowledge about the future pattern of demand for or supply of energy in the world.
If we seriously believed that Governments have access to such superior economic knowledge, logically we should decide to put the whole economy into the hands of a Gosplan. At least in other sectors of the economy and economic and industrial policy— even among the Opposition— the light has dawned and it has been appreciated that that is not a very intelligent way to proceed.
The Government should not second-guess the aggregate wisdom of the energy industry— the producers and the customers— and say, "If a regional electricity company wishes to sign a contract for the long-term supply of electricity to be produced by combined cycle gas turbine stations, it shall not be allowed to do so, or if people wish to build nuclear plants, they shall not be allowed to do so because we have superior wisdom." The Government's responsibility is to liberate the energy market to allow the full range of judgments of those who are involved in the market and are prepared to invest in it to determine the pattern of new resource allocation and to ensure that we have as competitive and, therefore, as efficient an energy market as possible.
That goes for coal, but of course it also goes for gas. It is about time that we continued the very virtuous process of deregulation of the gas industry so as to deregulate also the retail market below 2,500 therms consumption per year right down to nothing per year. If anybody wants to get into the business of supplying a retail customer with gas, there is absolutely no reason why he should not be allowed to do so.
Similarly, in the nuclear industry it is about time that we got rid of the nuclear levy which distorts energy markets of all kinds. Equally, as a necessary counterpart to that, it would be necessary for the Government to resume the liabilities that they imposed on Nuclear Electric. We should get rid of the nuclear levy. We should equally get rid of the moratorium on the construction of nuclear power stations. If a privatised Nuclear Electric— I hope that it will be privatised soon— decides that it wishes to build a Sizewell C or further nuclear power stations, it should be allowed to do so. If private sector investors are prepared to put in the money to do that, who are the Government to say that they are making the wrong economic decision and that it should not be done?
Last but not least, the effect of a deregulated, more competitive energy market would be that British Coal, whether privatised or not, would have to begin to respond to genuine competitive pressure for the first time. I do not think that there is anyone, even on the Labour Benches, who genuinely believes that British Coal has done all that it might do to market coal aggressively and to look for new applications for coal and new markets for it. Of course, British Coal has not done that. The sad fact is that it has suffered from a terrible handicap— the debilitation of 50 years of nationalisation and protected markets.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country want straight answers to straight questions: will they have a job at Christmas, and can they plan for their summer holidays? They want to know about their future. As miners in Calverton said to me only this week, they cannot take being treated like dogs. They can face the future, but they cannot face continued uncertainty.
Miners at Bilsthorpe—I am proud to be wearing a Bilsthorpe tie today—want to know whether they will be given an opportunity to keep their pit open. I remind the House that, before the accident in the summer, Bilsthorpe was producing coal at a profitable rate. It was the most productive British coal pit in the country. The accident has put it back. The cost per gigajoule increased but it is now coming down. The men at Bilsthorpe fought for the life of that pit. Some of them have given their lives for it to give them some time to show what they can do at the colliery.
Ministers should look at Calverton colliery, which has had £10 million spent on it to open a new face. It is important to recognise that at Calverton, traditionally, 50 per cent. of the coal comes from a domestic market. It is important to acknowledge that 80 per cent. of that coal can be used to keep our fires burning, rather than importing coal from countries such as Poland. It is astonishing that, in the current year, the amount of imported coal will double, yet there is a question mark over Calverton colliery on which £10 million has just been spent. It is important to give the colliery an opportunity to keep our balance of payments down and to supply our needs.
My hon. Friends have followed this debate extremely carefully. They know that the Government not only cannot run the energy market but cannot tell the passing of the seasons. Some of us would like to know what has happened to the nuclear review, which was promised for the summer. It is now the autumn and we are getting into winter. When will an announcement be made on the nuclear review? Will the announcement simply be about economic matters, or will it also deal with environmental issues?
Many people have made the case for nuclear generation. However, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is that it has not been able to sort out decommissioning and disposal costs. It is astonishing that there is talk of a new Sizewell C at a time when there is so much power in this country. It is more astonishing that, when the Minister of Energy was confronted with the planning application, he washed his hands of the matter.
The issue before us is that of the power market. We have talked a lot about coal, but we should acknowledge that there are 26 coal-fired power stations in England and Wales. By the end of the current coal contract, the number of coal-fired power stations will have shrunk significantly. Less than 10 coal-fired power stations will be left, and places such as Castle Donington, Staythorpe and High Marnham will have closed. About 16 power stations have closed, with 10,000 job losses. The power stations that remain in places such as Didcot, Ferrybridge and Ratcliffe will be used to twin shift. It is a bit like flying a jumbo jet from Manchester airport to Yeadon airport. Power stations should be on base level and the peaks should be covered by gas. There is a place for strong coal-fired power stations in this country.
We are also faced with the prospect of privatisation. Miners will want to give the Government some pointers and to ask why, if they are restructuring, they keep changing the terms of redundancy payments. Why cannot the Government give a commitment tonight that the same terms will apply to redundancy payments throughout the restructuring process?
Miners also want a commitment on pensions. They have read the Government's consultation document on pensions. It is questionable. They want a commitment that any surpluses taken away will be compensated for by improvements in pension rights. They also want to know

what will happen if they work in the newly privatised industry and their company is taken over. Will their pension continue?
Most important, under privatisation, the miners want the coal industry to survive. We are in a highly competitive market and clearly it makes sense that, if privatisation is to come—we will fight it—we should go for a unitary model in England and Wales because we need a core of pits to ensure that coal can compete in the energy market.
It is clear to me that the Government are in an unseemly haste to privatise coal. They want to put the coffin lid on the coal industry and bury it. Miners are progressive and hard working. They and the management are a fine body of men. They will not be put down and buried easily. If the Government try a quick and botched privatisation, the ghost will rise to haunt them for ever.

Mr. George Stevenson: In view of the time, I shall be brief. The crux of the debate is what has happened since the White Paper and that is what all hon. Members should consider and be concerned about. I have heard a lot of sympathy in the majority of speeches from Conservative Members—most contributions have been conspicuous for the amount of sympathy—but I have failed to detect any coherent response from the Government.
I take my hat off to the Government. For a party of competition and free market philosophy, the Conservative party has demonstrated a gritty, dogmatic determination to support a rigged system. The pool pricing system is the best example of that. If ever a system were contrived by people to penalise an industry and meticulously to create —in a connived way—a licence to print money, it is the pool system, which determines the price of electricity. We all know why that is. Like the nuclear industry, the coal industry is being prepared for privatisation. Let us compare the two. The Government are pumping £1.3 billion a year into the nuclear industry until it is ready to be privatised, but they are closing down 85 per cent. of the coal industry —perhaps the private sector might then be interested. That comes across very clearly from the way in which the Government have pursued their policies.
The reality is that the White Paper conceded very little and gave the coal industry no fair chance. Why should we be suprised that it was never intended to do so? It was a bolt hole for Ministers. We must all face that reality this evening, irrespective of which way we shall vote, and I pay tribute to those Conservative Members who have had the courage to say how they will vote.
The Government's approach to the nuclear industry is perhaps the shining example of their prejudice against the coal industry. We have heard references this evening to the much-heralded and promised review of the nuclear industry. I think that we have all seen recent reports that the Government are now thinking of announcing the review at the end of the year. The Minister is reported to have said that, when the review is announced, Nuclear Electrict must not be encouraged to think that that is a signal for it to apply for privatisation. It will not do so because it has been given the message, "Don't worry, wait until you've been fattened up a little more by the subsidies that we're providing. Then you can apply for privatisation." A clear message has emerged from the debate—the Government's


complete failure to react positively to the concerns that have rightly been expressed by hon. Members this evening and for some time.
I conclude with an appeal. The Government may claim that they have a right to act as they are doing because they are the elected Government, but they do not have the right to jeopardise the future energy security of the nation. Yet that is what they are doing. Let me give an example. Trentham colliery in my constituency has closed. It is one of the few that has a private bid to continue mining. Do not leave the decision on that bid to British Coal. It will fight tooth and nail to keep the colliery closed because it does not want the coal on the market. It wants its position protected. That is my concluding plea to the Government this evening. I hope that in reply we will hear a positive response to what is a mini-privatisation, which should be consistent with Government policy, although not with mine. There is good coal there and a bid in, and it should be supported.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: When I came to the House nine years ago in the middle of a miners' strike, I never thought that, nine years later, I would have to defend the last remaining pit in south Wales. It is the Tower colliery in my constituency. It is productive and made £12 million profit last year and will make more profit next year. Yet this week, 250 men are being made redundant. That is incredible, because the mine has a market for its coal. It sells to the Aberthaw power station and exports to Ireland, Spain, France and elsewhere.
This week, I wrote to the Minister and today I got a reply. I asked him why these men were facing the sack and why coal imports for industrial and domestic use had risen when the coal output from pits such as Tower was being cut. He said that nearly two thirds of imported coal is of grades and types for which the United Kingdom has insufficient sources of supply, including anthracite. He continued:
BC's policy is to maximize sales of British coal and only where this is not possible to engage in imports … shortages, therefore, have to be supplied by imported coal.
Tower coal is grade 2 anthracite quality. It is precisely what is needed for our domestic market. Tower miners will tell how it is the best low-sulphur coal in the world today and that the domestic market is crying out for the anthracite coal that Tower produces. Instead of supplying this market, Tower coal is being passed over for imported coal.
If the Government's so-called subsidy for British Coal to sell more coal means anything, Tower would have assured markets for its coal. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Employment in the Chamber. He used to be the Secretary of State for Wales. He will remember well how he congratulated the men from my pit on their productivity and profitability when I took them to see him in February. They thought that their future was assured.
My constituency has the highest male unemployment rate in Wales. One in three men is out of a job. If the pit shuts, 40 per cent. of the working men in my area will be without a job. The area has one of the lowest incomes per household in the United Kingdom—£f4,000 a year. That is poverty in Britain. If the Government shut the pit and further destroy the industry in my constituency, £10 million will be taken out of the area.
The market is rigged and has been rigged all along. The Government are destroying the industry from spite because of how the miners fought them in many coal strikes over the years. The industry should be retained for the future of this country and its energy policy.

Mr. Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) dealt admirably with the recent history of the Government's chopping and changing concerning the coal industry. My hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), have spelled out passionately the impact of the Government's policies on the communities which they try their best to represent. I do not represent such a community, so I must stick to what might be called the basic facts.
The basic fact that the House needs to remember is that Britain is a fuel-rich country in a Europe that is short of fuel. No other country in the European Community has such large fuel reserves of such variety. Those natural assets should have been used to the benefit of our people by adding weight to our bargaining position with the other EC members. Instead, those advantages have been frittered away and fuel-rich Britain has a fuel trade deficit which further pit closures can only make worse.
Britain's coal mines are the most efficient in the EC and they produce coal at half the cost of that which is mined in Germany or in any other mines in western Europe. No other British industry is twice as efficient as its German counterpart and yet this is the industry which this short-sighted and stupid Government have chosen to close down.
The mines are not being closed because of inexorable market forces but because that is what the Government always intended. They will close because of the Tory policies adopted not just in the past few months but in the past few years. Those mines will close because, in the past 10 years, the Tory policy has been based on years of neglect, not benign neglect but malignant neglect, and wasted opportunity.
A year ago, the Government let the cat out of the bag and announced their policy that meant that 31 pits were to close. That announcement confirmed all that the Labour party had said in the past five years as the Tories pushed through the privatisation of the electricity industry.
There was a public outcry at the Government's announcement and the people of this country saw for the first time what the Tories were doing to the mines and they knew that it was wrong. As a result of that public outcry, the Government backed down, or appeared to do so. They carried out a review of their policies and considered a report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. They also published a White Paper that has turned out to be nothing more than a con.
We argued at the time that the Government's proposals in that White Paper would not save any mine and our arguments have turned out to be true. Almost all the original 31 pits have closed or are doomed to close. Even some pits that were not originally threatened are now at risk.
The Government's efforts to try to con the people were successful when one considers the newspaper headlines of the time. The Financial Times ran the headline:
Government to save 12 pits".
The headline in The Times stated:


Heseltine pit rescue deal to cost £500 million".
The Daily Telegraph reported:
Twelve pits reprieved by Heseltine. £700 million lifeline for the coal industry removes threat of revolt by Tory MPs
The Daily Express—at that time a supporter of the Prime Minister—announced:
Major's £700 million pits rescue
There was some discrepancy, however, because it is obvious that the journalists were not clear, despite, presumably, carefully reading the White Paper and listening even more carefully to Tory Ministers, whether the possible subsidy was £500 million or £700 million. We have learned today, however, that just £2 million of that subsidy has been called on.
If people think that a subsidy of up to £700 million seems a generous offer in an effort to save a small part of the British coal industry, it is worth reminding the British taxpayer that the Government have used £350 million of taxpayers' money to subsidise property speculation at Canary Wharf. All that money was called upon.
The Government's line now is that they never promised to save any pits, but, as the headlines show, that was not the impression that they gave and they did nothing to correct that impression. I checked with the newspapers published the day after those headlines and found that they contained no letters from the President of the Board of Trade pointing out that they had got it wrong. The Government set out to deceive the news media and the general public, and they succeeded.
That was not the first example of Tory deception over pit closures. For years, the Government pretended that they did not intend to run down the coal industry. Almost two years ago to the day, I published a report which Rothschild, the merchant bankers, had prepared for the Government. It was a secret report by Tory bankers, sent to Tory Ministers, predicting that thousands of miners would be thrown on the dole and that Britain could end up with as few as a dozen working collieries—the process that is going on now.
What was the response of the Government and British Coal to my publication of that report? The then Energy Secretary, now Lord Wakeham, blamed Labour for what he referred to as scare stories about running down the coal industry. He dismissed as
coming from cloud cuckoo land
Labour complaints that British Coal was being run down to make way for cheaper imported coal. He used taxpayers' money to do that, as he did it on press statements issued in the name of the Department of Energy.
The boss of British Coal was not backward in denouncing us either. He was reported in the newspapers as
hitting back at suggestions that the company planned wholesale pit closures ahead of privatisation".
He added:
We are not in the business of planning to discard pits".
He may not plan to do it. Apparently, he just does it by accident.
Nobody believes what the Government or British Coal say now, because too often they have not told the truth about their intentions for the industry. When the Tories wanted to hang on to seats in Nottinghamshire at the last election, the then Energy Secretary promised the Nottingham miners, in a press release issued by Tory central office,
a secure long-term future for your great industry".
He went to Nottinghamshire to say that. Since then, several of the Nottingham pits have closed and none of them is safe.
Nobody in the coal industry can trust a word that the Government say, which is why no one in the industry now accepts their promises on safety or their reassurances about what will happen to the pension funds if the industry is privatised.
The Government now say that they have done their best to help the coal industry, but that there is no market for coal. So that is that—the pits must close. However, the Government have done nothing or next to nothing to help. They can do nothing unless they are prepared to change the energy market in Britain. It is not, has never been and is never likely to be a free market. It is a market that has been rigged by the Government to the advantage of virtually everybody in the world except the British coal industry arid the British people.
The nuclear industry, foreign coal producers, France, the foreign suppliers of orimulsion, and the multinational oil companies that sell the British people their own North sea gas all benefit from the rigged market. So do the foreign suppliers of natural gas and the foreign builders of the gas-fired power stations that are going up all over our country. The Government's energy policy seems directed to help every energy industry in the world except ours. They may have it reclassified as part of our overseas aid programme.
The most efficient coal-fired power stations can produce electricity at costs significantly lower than alternative fuel. Do any Conservative Members challenge that assertion? Apparently it is accepted—there are no objections. I am glad about that because that is what John Wakeham said when he produced an article for the people of Mansfield in Nottingham on 11 March 1992, just before the general election. I shall repeat what he said because it is the basis of our case and that of the coalfield communities:
the most efficient coal-fired power stations can produce electricity at costs which are significantly lower than alternative fuels.
Let us consider those alternative fuels. Let us take French electricity, and—my God!—we take a lot of French electricity, which is produced by nuclear power stations that are subsidised by France. When I say that they are subsidised, I really mean subsidised. The way that the French subsidise their nuclear power stations makes the common agricultural policy seem like the free interplay of market forces. On top of that, our stupid Government decided to give the French another subsidy almost as big as that which the French themselves provide to make their nuclear power even cheaper. Why should British miners have to compete with that?
As to British nuclear power, every electricity consumer has to pay a nuclear levy, and without the takings from that levy Nuclear Electric would be trading while insolvent —for that is what it told the Select Committee. Under the present arrangements, however, nuclear power stations supply power wherever and whenever they can produce it, at whatever cost they can produce it, while coal-fired power stations capable of producing cheaper electricity are forced to lie idle. That is not the operation of a free market.
Under the present arrangements, Nuclear Electric has a legal right to first place in the merit order of operating power stations. When Sizewell B comes on stream, it will go on base load despite the fact that it will be producing not the cheapest electricity in Britain but the dearest. Those are the economics of the madhouse.
Much has happened since I coined the phrase "the dash for gas" three years ago. Many more gas-fired power


stations are being built, but if one takes proper account of the capital building costs, the cost of the electricity that they produce is higher than that of coal-fired stations. In addition, most of that generating capacity has been designed by foreign companies, because British companies are not in a position to compete.
Recently, I was told that I should stop calling orimulsion the filthiest fuel in the world. But I cannot forget that the burning of orimulsion led to the famous headline in The Sun, "Black rain eats cars". Orimulsion can be burned safely only if millions of pounds are spent on cleaning its chimney emissions. If that expenditure were undertaken, orimulsion would price itself out of the market.
Deep-mined British coal is denied access to a market in which it is the cheapest fuel. The Tories say that they believe in free markets. The coal industry would be saved from the threat of near-extinction if the Government would end the way that they rig the market against coal.
That is not the only consideration. Energy projects are enormous in their scale, vast in their cost, and take a long time to bring into operation. That is true whether the project is an oil-producing platform in the North sea, a nuclear power station or the sinking of a mine. No market can respond quickly to long-term changes in fuel supply or the demand for energy, which is why such decisions cannot be left to the market alone. In no country of the world are they left to the market alone. Such decisions call for strategic involvement by Governments.
That is not the only reason why there is a role for Government in energy decision-making. Fuel imports and exports make an enormous impact on our balance of trade. In addition, national security and self-sufficiency must be considered. There are also Europe-wide implications that no Government can abdicate. To burn gas in power stations to provide base load electricity is to waste that gas. It is better burnt at the place that it is intended to heat. To burn it in power stations will run down our limited supplies.
If our pits are closed, Britain will be left dependent on foreign supplies of natural gas. When we first raised that issue, Tory Ministers laughed and mocked, and said that we could get it from abroad. When we asked them where, they answered, "The Gulf, Algeria and the Soviet Union" and then they laughed again.
Since then, we have had the Gulf war, the Algerian army has felt it necessary to organise a coup to keep Muslim fundamentalists out of the Government and the Soviet Union has sundered into republics, some of which are themselves descending into separatist chaos.
The Tories believe that we and our children should be dependent on the Gulf, Algeria and Russia for long-term supplies of gas. How short-sighted can they get, leaving our country and the rest of Europe to be held to ransom?
Other foreign supplies of coal are scarcely more reliable. Some of them rely on semi-slave and child labour. Why should Britain's miners have to compete against child or slave labour? That cannot be right. A decent British Government would campaign against child and slave labour in pits around the world, making them compete on equal terms with us.
Fuel imports have to be paid for. We already have a dreadful trade deficit. Closing mines will condemn us to importing more and more fuel, so our exports will have to

rise to avoid increases in the deficit. Will not the Government recognise that fact? The President is, after all, the President of the Board of Trade.
In the past 10 years, the Government have become obsessed with their addiction to privatisation. Apart from privatisation, they have no energy policy. All over the world, countries with coal supplies have invested in clean coal technology. Even under Ronald Reagan, the United States had a $2 billion programme to develop clean coal technology. Governments and companies in Sweden and Germany have invested heavily in cleaner methods of burning coal. Such a policy provides a market for coal and experience and expertise for the American, German and Swedish companies that are designing and building such plant. As the world turns more and more to clean coal technology, those companies will get the orders for new plant. They will have the know-how. British companies will be at a disadvantage because Tory short-sightedness will have excluded them from yet another modern market.
That is not all. The European Community imports about 120 million tonnes of coal a year. A sensible British Government would have pushed our partners to help British Coal by making Europe reduce its dependence on outside supplies of coal. After all, Tories constantly prate on about the need to be concerned about Europe's trade balance with the rest of the world. Here is an opportunity to help, but the Government have thrown it away. They have done nothing to help. Instead, they have prattled on about subsidiarity and closed down the most efficient mines in Europe while other countries keep their less efficient mines open. Our European partners think that we are mad. It is not the British people but the British Government who are mad.
We have heard speeches from hon. Members with experience of coalfields and former coalfields all over the country. There is one colliery left in Scotland, one left in Wales and one left in Northumberland. Under this Government, importing coals to Newcastle has become a reality—it is part of their energy policy. There are no collieries left in Lancashire—

Mr. Skinner: And Derbyshire.

Mr. Dobson: They are threatened in Derbyshire and Durham.
The Government must abandon the pit closure programme. They could make a start by giving coal an equal opportunity to compete. If they stop rigging the market against British mined coal, our collieries can compete and prosper. They could make sure that no more orimulsion is imported. They could cut coal imports—there are no international obligations that prevent us from doing that. They could reduce their purchases of electricity from France and insist on exporting British electricity through that channel link. They could cut opencast mining. They could end the issue of new licences for new gas-fired power stations. They could get regulators to do their jobs properly and refuse to accept sweetheart deals in which companies buy expensive electricity from gas-fired power stations. They could stop the gas-fired stations and the nuclear power stations from hogging the base load, which their costs do not justify. They could start selling coal to our European partners.
If the Government did that, they would achieve many benefits for Britain. They would save all that taxpayers' money now being poured into making men redundant.


They would help the balance of trade and reduce our growing dependence on imports. They would stop thousands of miners and other people being thrown on the dole. They would sustain the coalfield communities.
The miners and their families are not looking for charity from the House or anybody else tonight. What they are looking for is a decent chance and a bit of common sense. The only way that the House can give them a chance and show a bit of common sense is by voting against the Government tonight.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): We have on several occasions over the past year debated the coal industry. I believe that this is the first occasion on which the shadow employment spokesman has participated in these debates. I should like to say a few personal words to him as he now moves to a new position as shadow transport spokesman.
I have much appreciated his unfailing courtesy. We may have disagreed on policies and principles, but we have never doubted each other's commitment to bringing clown the level of unemployment and increasing employment opportunities.

Mr. Dobson: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Hunt: Just one second. The only defect in my shadow spokesman is that he sometimes does not know a compliment when it hits him in the face.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I am still paying tribute to him.
I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said when he spoke of the depth of compassion that there is in the House for the coal industry. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said that it came from all parts of the House. The debates that we have had about the coal industry have been characterised by the extent of commitment to coal on both sides of the House, and among all hon. Members.
I have spent some considerable time looking up the debates about coal that have taken place in previous years. One interesting era was the 1960s when there were extensive debates about markets and the collapse of the coal market. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to play close attention to those debates and to what happened.
Coal had a substantial market in domestic fuel. Throughout the country most people burned coal in their grates to provide heating for hot water and central heating in their homes. During the 1960s, the bottom fell out of the market. Although coal used to provide a substantial proportion of the market in the 1960s, that market almost completely disappeared.
Today, coal provides only 7 per cent. of that domestic market, whereas in the 1960s it was four, five or six times as much. During the debates in the 1960s great anger was felt on both sides of the House about the way that coal mines were shutting—10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, and at a rate of 40, 50 or 60 a year. What on this occasion caused a serious problem to become much less of a challenge was the extension of the market for coal in electricity generation. As all hon. Members will know, many coal mines that shut because of the collapse in domestic markets

were reopened as the market suddenly expanded into electricity generation. Now those markets have changed again.
This evening we are debating our reaffirmation of what we said in the White Paper in which we made it clear that electricity generation must look for the best fuel in the market. Coal must take its place in the highly competitive world of energy.
This debate has fallen into five sections—first, the talk about markets; secondly, the question of closures and the policy of British Coal; thirdly, regeneration and what will happen to mining communities when their coal mines close; then, a lengthy debate on health and safety; and finally the feeling of Conservative Members, clearly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), that the future of the coal industry must lie in privatisation. It is important to ensure that we get through to that privatisation with the most competitive possible coal industry.
First, then, I want to discuss markets. As we said in the White Paper, it is important that coal takes its place in the market. I must tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) that what I believe was in the minds of the miners to whom he referred was not the attraction of money but the facts of the market as it is today—

Mr. Patchett: Rubbish.

Mr. Hunt: I believe that those who work in the industry can see the meaning of the ever-growing stock piles of unused coal. Those stock piles grow by the day.
At the end of the last financial year, 1992–93, stocks stood at more than 47 million tonnes. Already this year another three million have been added to stock. So in spite of the exploration of further markets, British Coal estimates that by the end of this financial year there will be more than 50 million tonnes in stock. The next financial year will thus start with more than a year's supply of coal already in stock.
No industry can possibly operate with stocks as high as these. Doing so not only places an intolerable burden on the taxpayer and the electricity consumer, who must pay the costs of producing and storing unsold coal; it also puts the future of the industry at great risk.
As we pointed out in the White Paper, maintaining stocks would matter less if the market for coal was, expanding. Sad to say, it has been in decline for decades. Before the first world war our mines produced about 300 million tonnes of coal a year. By the time of nationalisation, production had fallen to 200 million. The figure is now below 100 million tonnes.
For the next year, British Coal's contract with the generators—the industry's main customer—will fall to 40 million and then to 30 million tonnes. Contrary to the figures claimed by some Members this evening, that coal will be sold at well above the world market price. That price will have to be supported by electricity consumers. We have the advantage in this country of being rich in energy, not only in coal but in gas and oil.
Never let us forget the fact that we pioneered civil nuclear energy in this country. Several of my hon. Friends —in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—made an important point during the debate. If we were to follow the advice contained in a pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in the early 1980s, or indeed if we were to follow the


implication of the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and shut down the nuclear industry, it would cost approximately 100,000 jobs.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) spoke proudly about the colliery in his constituency and I share that pride with him. However, he owes it to the House to point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was in that area earlier today, and also that a substantial number of new jobs will be generated by the Point of Ayr gas development by Hamilton and at the Connah's Quay power station.
I hope that when hon. Members speak in the House about energy and coal they will recognise a fact that has been pointed out by several speakers in the debate—that one constantly must weigh the balance of the effects on jobs in all the energy industries and not in just one.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that he is making a case that the coal industry has made in the past and that many hon. Members have made today, which is that one cannot make decisions about the coal industry nor about its employment prospects in isolation? The industry must be looked at in the context of an energy strategy. The employment implications require that, if one is being just, equal opportunity is given to coal, to gas, to oil and to renewables. Above all, is not it important that hon. Members debate all the industries and the employment implications of all the industries together, otherwise they will never be treated fairly?

Mr. Hunt: The Liberal Democrats have omitted to table an amendment to tonight's Opposition motion. The last time that the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment, the party spokesman signed two mutually exclusive amendments. The official Liberal Democrat amendment omitted the word "coal" except in reference to the White Paper—

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Get on with it.

Mr. Hunt: I am answering the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The Liberal Democrat amendment stated that there should be fair opportunities for all energy sources, but the only one that they highlighted was renewables. I know that the Liberal Democrat party believes that the future of energy lies in windmills, but we need a sense of responsibility when dealing with energy. If the Liberal Democrat party wants to be taken seriously in important debates such as this, it owes it to the House to put its views on the Order Paper in a proper amendment that hon. Members can judge on its merits.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, not only has the Liberal Democrat party always talked about the anomaly of there not being VAT on fuel bills, but in its most recent document calling for taxation on polluters it has specifically endorsed EC proposals—particularly French proposals—for a carbon tax? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report states that a carbon tax would be most damaging for the British coal industry, and that the Government ought to oppose it?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and

others calculated that the effect of that proposal would be to add 58 per cent. to the price of coal. I have not heard that figure challenged during the debate, but I hope that at some stage the Liberal Democrat party will put the facts and statistics in an open way.
Everyone in the House knows that closures are a matter for British Coal. Everyone also knows that under the modified colliery review procedure British Coal will ask the unions and employees for their views when they look into the realities of the market for coal. The corporation has decided to resume consultations with the unions through the modified colliery review procedure. I welcome that. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) asked me whether it would be a meaningful consultation. It has to be: I give him that assurance. The resumption of that procedure is a welcome return to the normal consultative arrangements within the industry.
As the House will know, the current redundancy terms for miners were due to expire on 31 December. Several hon. Members have asked about those terms. Of course, the redundancy terms are extremely generous. Payments average £24,000 and may be as high as £37,000. Few of the taxpayers who finance them in either the public or the private sector enjoy such generous terms. However, I believe that I speak for everyone in the House in saying that we do not begrudge those terms. People respect those who have risked their life to work and to win coal. That is why, as my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) pointed out, coal and coal miners have such a strong impact on the emotions of the House and will continue to do so for years ahead.
I hope that the House will welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy of the extension of the funding for those redundancy terms until 30 April next year. My hon. Friend went further in answer to several questions. He made it clear that if consultations are still in progress at that time, the funding will be extended beyond April, if necessary. I hope that that announcement removes any pressure on individual miners to accept redundancy now in the fear that the terms in the early part of next year will be less favourable.
Several hon. Members raised the need to ensure that we provide proper help to those in pit communities affected by closure. I remind the House that the Government have already promised and provided £200 million to regenerate pit communities affected by closure. Some £75 million is available to English Estates to build factory units in the affected areas. Three new enterprise zones are in the process of being established. Assisted area status has been granted to six new coal-mining areas. Through my Department I have arranged for £75 million to be made available through the training and enterprise councils. In all, that amounts to some very substantial assistance.
I attended a meeting with Lord Walker in my Department in the past few days with many people, including local authority and training and enterprise council representatives, at which we worked out the best possible strategy to feed new jobs into coal-mining areas. We shall continue with that policy.
I am not sure whether the House apreciated exactly what we said in the debate about health and safety. The Governmnent are determined that privatisation will bring no compromise whatever in the high standards of safety that have always been present in the industry. To that end, we asked the Health and Safety Commission to produce a


detailed and comprehensive piece of work on all aspects of the post-privatisation safety regime. I believe that that meets the needs of all who have a genuine concern and interest in ensuring that all the relevant safety issues are addressed in the run-up to privatisation. I commend the commission on the thorough way in which it has gone about its task. I am happy to give an assurance on behalf of the Government but, before I do, I will give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister answer the question that I put yesterday and last week—to which I have had no reply—and assure the House and the country that no foreign producer of coal which has a grossly unsatisfactory safety record in the mines of its country of origin will be allowed to purchase collieries in this country?

Mr. Hunt: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. It is dealt with in the commission's advice, which is available in the Vote Office and the Library. I can assure the House that we accept the commission's advice in full, and that we will ensure that it is implemented.

Mr. Churchill: No Conservative Member doubts the Government's commitment to the maintenance of safety in the mines. I take it that there is reasonably close consultation between the Government and the coal board. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many of the 50 pits that were in business a year ago he expects still to be producing coal at the end of this financial year?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot give a precise figure. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, the principal recommendation in the Select Committee report was that the Government should make available a subsidy —[Interruption.] Yes—that the Government should make available a subsidy for additional markets to be secured. We have already announced the granting of the first subsidy, and that money is available provided additional markets can be found. It is for British Coal to make decisions about individual pits.
Will my hon. Friend please bear in mind, when he questions the £20 billion investment announced earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, that £8 billion has been spent on capital improvements and schemes for British Coal? Asfordby is not winning coal at the moment, but it has already had £250 million spent on it, with a further £70 milllion still to be spent—and that mine has not yet opened. That is a demonstration that these are not just subsidies but an investment in the future, for which the Government are responsible. I have not even mentioned the £1,500 million that has been invested in Selby. Selby is now producing coal at more than 12 tonnes per man shift, which is a tremendous record.

Mr. Caborn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hunt: No; I only have a few minutes left.
The future of this great industry must lie in privatisation, as I, with several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have already said. I strongly believe that the sooner the coal industry goes into the private sector, the more secure will be the future of the coal miners. That is felt not only by the Government but by some members of the Opposition.
Time and time again we have asked what the Labour party would do if it ever returned to government. Would it renationalise the coal industry once it had moved into the

private sector? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The answer from below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches is, "Yes, we will renationalise the coal industry." During the debate we heard no answer from the Opposition Front Bench Members as to what they would do. They remained silent.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am happy to say that whatever plan there may be to rescue what is left of the coal industry would involve a degree of public ownership. How many pits will be left when the election comes, and how many will the Government close?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman ought to consult the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) because she said on the radio today, in answer to a question, that it would not be possible to renationalise. Perhaps he ought to get his policy sorted out.
I urge the House to throw out the Opposition amendment and to accept the Government's motion.

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 317.

Division No. 372]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cash, William


Adams, Mrs Irene
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Churchill, Mr


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Coffey, Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barren, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bayley, Hugh
Corston, Ms Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Denham, John


Boyce, Jimmy
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dowd, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Ms Angela


Byers, Stephen
Eastham, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Enright, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fisher, Mark






Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Gordon, Mildred
Meacher, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hall, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hardy, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pendry, Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ron
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Snape, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Watson, Mike


Spellar, John
Welsh, Andrew


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wise, Audrey


Straw, Jack
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Dr Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Wallace, James
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Walley, Joan





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Butler, Peter
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Garnier, Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clappison, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gorst, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Coe, Sebastian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Colvin, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Congdon, David
Grylls, Sir Michael






Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
MacKay, Andrew


Hague, William
Maclean, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Madel, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hannam, Sir John
Major, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Andrew
Malone, Gerald


Harris, David
Mans, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Marland, Paul


Hawkins, Nick
Marlow, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hayes, Jerry
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Heald, Oliver
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mates, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Merchant, Piers


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Milligan, Stephen


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mills, Iain


Horam, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Monro, Sir Hector


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Moss, Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Needham, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Jack, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Jenkin, Bernard
Norn's, Steve


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Page, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Patnick, Irvine


Key, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pawsey, James


Kirkhope, Timothy
Pickles, Eric


Knapman, Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, Sir David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Richards, Rod


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Riddick, Graham


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Robathan, Andrew


Legg, Barry
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Leigh, Edward
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lidington, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Luff, Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sackville, Tom


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim





Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trend, Michael


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trimble, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speed, Sir Keith
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waller, Gary


Spring, Richard
Ward, John


Sproat, Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stewart, Allan
Widdecombe, Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Sweeney, Walter
Willetts, David


Sykes, John
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Yeo.Tim


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. David Llghtbown and


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Quesion, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
'That this House reaffirms its approval for the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review" (Cm 2235) which accepted the principal recommendations of the Report by the Trade and Industry Committee "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal" (HC 237) and in particular the offer of a transitional subsidy for additional sales of United Kingdom underground coal for electricity generation; welcomes the help provided by the Government to coal field communities affected by closures; welcomes the offer of subsidy, subject to EC clearance, to British Coal, for coal from the Ellington colliery; welcomes the fact that British Coal have offered to the private sector the pits that they do not themselves wish to keep in production; welcomes the Government's commitment that the present high standards of safety achieved by British Coal be maintained or improved; and welcomes the Government's intention to bring forward as soon as parliamentary time allows the legislation necessary to privatise British Coal since the best future for the coal industry lies in the private sector.'.

Assisted Areas

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Assisted Areas Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1877), dated 23rd July 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be annulled.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1894), dated 27th July 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be annulled.

Mr. Fatchett: When the Minister of State made his announcement in July on the new map for the assisted areas, he had the audacity to claim a degree of success and to claim that he had squared a number of circles. The reality is that the new map reflects the new geography of Conservative economic failure.
Over the past few years, the north-south divide has disappeared. It has been blurred, but not by the Government creating some new affluence in the north of England. On the contrary, there has been no economic miracle. What happened was that the south of England declined, so the Government faced a new situation. Many once prosperous areas in the south of England were demanding that they should receive assisted area status.
The figures speak for themselves. In London, between 1983 and 1992, 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. Between 1990 and 1992 in the banking, insurance and finance sector—where wealth was often created in London —90,000 jobs were lost. In the same two years, 96,000 jobs were lost in retail services and the hotel industry. That proves the depth of the recession and the collapse of the wealth-making sectors in London. The picture is the same in the south of England. More than 8 per cent. of jobs were lost in the south between 1990 and 1992. There are currently 334,000 fewer jobs than there were three years ago.
I am not surprised that Conservative Members do not want to listen to the figures. The reason is that they predominantly represent the south of England, and the simple fact is that they do so very badly. The figures prove that the Conservatives have let down the very areas on which they have traditionally relied for support. The once prosperous south has asked to be included on the assisted areas map. In Harwich, 47 per cent. of all homes and property are owned outright—that is the highest proportion in the country—but one person in eight is unemployed in that travel-to-work area, and Harwich has been designated an assisted area.
Such developments changed the politics and ideology of the Conservatives. Since the announcement was made last autumn until this summer, it was interesting to watch how one Conservative after another said that, despite his commitment to the free market, he wanted Government intervention and support for his area. There was significant dissonance between the professed views of the free marketeers and their demands for assistance for their areas.
In the end, of course, the Government received too many demands on the money available. Even so, my hon. Friends know that the Government have significantly cut that money. Let us take the period 1991–92 as the key year —or 100 per cent.—for regional expenditure. If we

compare it with 1978–79, the final year under a Labour Administration, it becomes clear that the Government have cut to one third the amount available for regional assistance. At the same time, unemployment has increased threefold according to the official figures and will have increased even more according to the unofficial figures. At the very time that we need intervention in industry and help through regional policies, the Government are cutting the money available.

Sir Teddy Taylor: To be fair, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reductions in the Government's proposals for assisted area status were made not by the Treasury or the Conservative party but by a bloke called Mr. van Miert who has complete power to decide how much of our own money we can spend and who reduced the percentage that the Government wanted? Rather than bashing the Government, would it not be fairer to point out the appalling fact that the final decision on how much of the British taxpayer's money the Government can spend to help the British unemployed is decided by one bloke in Brussels?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as a matter of policy, the Government have cut regional aid. I am sure that if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will want to mention Southend. I am sure that he knows that Southend was included in the original draft map submitted to Brussels but that it was then excluded. Some of my colleagues thought that that may have been the result of the hon. Gentleman's Maastricht activities during the previous month. I am sure that he has his own thoughts on that.
There have been two problems—first, a collapse of the economy in the south, leading to more areas demanding assistance, and, secondly, a cut in the money available. Those led to the third and key problem that faces us now. I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the orders because we are concerned about the openness of Government, and the way in which the criteria were used. Incidentally, that concern is not restricted to the Labour party. In The Guardian of 4 October the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) is reported as having said:
It's a disgrace that so many places in the South, which patently don't deserve it, were upgraded when they don't have anything like the problems of our inner city.
He was talking about Blackpool, but he could have been talking about many other places, too.
In his July statement the Minister said that some places were excluded because their unemployment had fallen since 1984. If that was the criterion, the Minister must tell us why the following areas were suddenly included in the map: Barnstaple and Ilfracombe, Bideford, Clacton, Dover and Deal, Folkestone, Great Yarmouth, Torbay and Thanet. Unemployment in all those areas declined over the same period. The Minister may realise that those places all share one common characteristic. Nobody denies that they have problems, but they do have one common characteristic: they are Conservative-held seats.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way again, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because the debate is short.

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: No, I shall not give way again. I have said why, and I believe that the Minister wants to make a few comments too.
The fact is that all those areas are Conservative-held. In an article in The Independent just before the Christchurch by-election, in the week in which the Minister announced the changes, Colin Brown wrote:
The towns that will benefit read like a roll-call of endangered Tory seats. In addition to Hastings (Conservative majority 6,634), there are Dover and Deal"—
where the Tory majority is 833 over Labour—
Great Yarmouth (…majority 5,309), Isle of Wight (…1,827), and Torbay"—
I am not sure whether that is official Conservative these days, but at the general election the majority of the then official candidate was 5,787.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: Yes, as I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Allason: What the hon. Gentleman has said is sheer fantasy. Whether I am an official or an unofficial Conservative, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of people who voted for me dropped by 205 between 1987 and 1992. Furthermore, if he honestly thinks that unemployment in my constituency has fallen since 1984 he has his facts completely wrong. I very much regret that unemployment there has considerably increased during that period.

Mr. Fatchett: There may be an argument about the criteria, but many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have the slight feeling that there has been an element of pork barrelling. I apologise to the hon. Member for Torbay for talking about constituencies with majorities of 6,000 as marginal seats. I suspect that these days even a majority of 16,000 or 20,000 means a marginal seat, so perhaps many more should have been included. Although the hon. Gentleman's majority may not be big enough, if the Conservative party goes the way of the Canadian Conservatives he may be one of the lucky two who holds on to his seat, thanks to the extra money that has been made available.
While the areas that I have mentioned have been included, others have been excluded, although they still experience high unemployment, and those are Labour areas. When the Minister replies to the debate perhaps he will answer some questions about areas in the country that still have high unemployment and great poverty yet have lost assisted area status or have been downgraded.
Manchester is a city with high unemployment. As my right hon. and hon. Friends asked at the time of the Government's statement, what justification is there for Manchester to lose assisted area status? Tower Hamlets has 20 per cent. unemployment, yet it does not qualify when other parts of London with high unemployment—not as high as that in Tower Hamlets—qualify. We are riot criticising those areas being included, but why is an area such as Tower Hamlets with 20 per cent. unemployment excluded? In Bradford there are 25,000 unemployed people. Bradford is always at the top of the European Commission poverty league tables. Why is Bradford excluded and other areas included?
Parts of the old industrial south Wales, where unemployment is structurally deep and long-term, have

been excluded, yet other areas which, for cyclical reasons, have seen a downturn in unemployment in 1993 are included as assisted areas. Workington was downgraded, but it still experiences 15.1 per cent. unemployment.
What will my right hon. and hon. Friends, decent people that they all are, conclude from those figures? The argument is strong. Any decent jury presented with those facts could come to only one conclusion. We have a desperate Government who are trying to help their friends in each of their constituencies. Labour areas become unimportant in that process. Therefore, Workington, Manchester, Bradford, south Wales and Tower Hamlets could be thrown overboard as the pork-barrelling goes towards Conservative constituencies.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way; I shall finish my speech in a few moments.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: No. It is a short debate. Several hon. Members with constituency interests would like to comment.
We are faced with three problems. First, there is the changing pattern of unemployment and the decline of the once-prosperous south. Secondly, there is a fall in the regional aid budget. Thirdly, there is deep concern that help is being skewed towards Tory areas. For that reason we will vote not to take out areas but to ask the Government to justify the criteria that have been used. The map that the Minister presented in July is hard to explain and hard to justify. The questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends ask tonight are the very questions that the Minister has to answer, otherwise the Government will stand accused of helping their friends and forgetting other parts of the country.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has said, this is a short debate. I suspect that several right hon. and hon. Members would like to make points about their constituencies. Therefore, I shall be brief. If the House will excuse me, it would be better not to accept interventions and to let people speak for themselves.
We should be clear that the consequences of the House rejecting the orders would be to return to the 1984 map. That is a sign that we have a desperate Opposition, fishing around for something to protest about. There is one question that the hon. Gentleman carefully ducked—what alternative map would he put forward? He is asking us to reject the map. He knows that, if an area is put into the map, another area has to be taken out. He seems to suggest, as I understand his rather unedifying remarks, that the pork-barrelling, as he described it, has rolled the barrel towards Tory seats, whereas he wants it rolled back towards Labour seats.

Mr. Tony Banks: Quite right, too.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman, in a characteristic intervention which was more honest than what we heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, said, "Quite right, too." It is clear that he wants the benefits of regional assistance to go to seats occupied by Labour Members.
That view ignores the underlying objective of the review. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the objective of directing regional industrial support at those areas that most need it now, not those areas that most needed it in 1984.
The conclusion that we could draw from what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said is that he does not accept that the map should be redrawn to reflect the current situation if that means that areas represented by Labour Members lose support and areas which need the support more, and which might in some cases be represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends, obtain support. That would mean that areas in the east and west midlands, the south-west, East Anglia and London—the hon. Gentleman complained about London in his speech—would not receive support. Mansfield with 13.3 per cent. unemployment, Thanet with 16.2 per cent. unemployment and Haringey with 20.7 per cent. unemployment would not receive help if the hon. Gentleman's views were accepted by the House.
The hon. Gentleman knows that strict limits are imposed on the coverage of assisted areas that we can have in this country. Those limits are imposed by the European Commission for a good reason. The restriction is imposed on all countries in the Community, which means that our industry has a more level playing field on which to compete than it would otherwise have.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: No. Many hon. Members want to speak and I shall finish my remarks as quickly as possible. I have given the reasons why there is a limit to our coverage. It is a sensible reason.
Reviewing the map required some difficult decisions. The review was conducted when, clearly, the pattern of unemployment in the country had changed since 1984. When we looked at the pattern of current unemployment taken as the average in the year to June 1993—it is sensible to take a whole year to avoid seasonal distortions—it was different from the pattern over the past five years. Clearly, in the new map, it would have been wrong to overlook areas with current unemployment well above the national average. Equally, it would have been wrong to overlook those areas—some of them are in Wales—where there were long-standing problems.
Postponing the review would have been unfair. For example, it would have denied assisted area status to a number of areas in the east midlands that have been seriously affected by coal closures. Simply extending the map to cover new areas without removing others would have been impossible. We have a strict ceiling on the overall coverage. I remind the House that that ceiling has had the effect of reducing coverage in Germany from 27 per cent. to 22 per cent. That is a much larger reduction than the one that we had to face.
If we had reflected the current realities, inevitably some areas would have lost assisted area status as a result of the review. I can assure the House that those decisions were not taken either easily or quickly. I recognise that a number of the areas that have lost assisted area status continue none the less to suffer significant levels of unemployment. Understandably, they wish that they had not lost that

status. I must tell those areas, and the right hon. and hon. Members who represent them, that the map is designed to identify the areas of greatest need relative to other areas. I recognise that that will be of little comfort to those areas that have lost status, but it is the Government's task to identify the areas with the strongest case for assistance.
In drawing the map, we took account of both past and present patterns of unemployment. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central raised a specific question about some areas, including Manchester. On the current level of unemployment for the year to June 1993, Manchester is not in the worst half of the country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at a map that covers slightly more than one third of the country.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Tower Hamlets. As he knows from what was said at the time the review was announced, the areas in London that we designated for assistance have sites and an infrastructure, and employment can be created to benefit people in not only those areas but areas nearby, including Tower Hamlets.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Bradford, which was only just inside the worst half. It came 48.2 in the list on current unemployment and was not even in the worst third on five-year unemployment. He mentioned the downgrading of Workington. We have 16 per cent. of the country in the development areas as opposed to the intermediate areas and Workington is 16.6 and 17.8 on one-year and five-year averages.
The hon. Government says that the map is indefensible. The figures, of which he should be aware, if he is to bandy about these allegations, entirely support the map that we have drawn. The map that he would apparently like to draw favours the seats of his right hon. and hon. Friends and takes no account of the realities of the current pattern of unemployment. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot offer his support to those areas that have lost assisted area status without at the same time denying support to the areas that have gained it. Which areas would he seek to deprive of assisted area status?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already gone on perhaps for longer than I should and I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
I am sure that all hon. Members would be interested to hear which areas the hon. Member for Leeds, Central would take out of the list. I strongly recommend the House to accept a list which reflects the reality of current unemployment and is honest to all parts of the country and both sides of the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be as brief as possible. There are several important issues at stake.
The first is the issue of criteria. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the Minister said, the criteria are not easy to interpret in terms of this map. A large number of different criteria have been used, as was made clear at the time of the announcement this summer. The Library brief, which sets out in tabular form all the different criteria for long-term unemployment, persistent unemployment as well as current unemployment, makes it


clear that there is no simple way of approaching the map. We should not set this in concrete today, in 1993, for ever and a day. It also needs to correlate closely with the structural funds of the European Community if it is to be effective.
The Minister was either rather naive or perhaps thought we were rather naive in suggesting that the ceilings put on expenditure are entirely a matter for a foreign power in foreign parts. That is not so. It is perfectly possible for our Ministers within the appropriate Council of Ministers—when this was last discussed, I believe, Britain held the presidency—to initiate a discussion about raising those ceilings. As far as I am aware and as far as the Minister has explained, at no time did the United Kingdom Government take an initiative to raise those ceilings. Therefore, it is expecting a lot of us to ask us to believe that somehow this is imposed on us.
As has been said, in real terms only one quarter of the regional assistance for the 10-year period from 1981 to 1991 is now being offered. During this period unemployment has trebled or even more than trebled, depending on which figures one takes. For Scotland, less than one third is now available for regional development assistance through this programme than in 1982. In Wales, it is 60 per cent. lower than 10 years ago. This reduction has been taking place during a period of substantial recession, hitting the industrial base of our country. If the Government believe that these are useful weapons with which to tackle unemployment, why have they not gone to the European Community and argued the case for more substantial aid?
It is also true that structural funds are available from the Community. However, the question why the United Kingdom map does not precisely correlate with objective 1, objective 2 and objective 5b status of the structural funds is constantly dodged. We in the far south-west are reasonably satisfied with the area assistance offered under the order, but we want to know why it has not been possible for Cornwall and Plymouth, or Cornwall alone, to achieve objective 1 status. That would enable us to receive the assistance from Brussels that we need.
The map has created certain curious anomalies which relate to various parts of the country, but one consistent theme is apparent. I would suggest that the map reveals not just new economic failure, but the new political vulnerability of the Government. Seat after seat in which the Conservative Member is challenged by a Liberal Democrat—particularly after the recent by-election successes—feature on the map. We welcome that acceptance of the new facts of life, which is fine, but some extremely damaging admissions are revealed by the map.
In Folkestone, economic failure has meant that the average unemployment rate has increased from 6 to 12.2 per cent. in just two years. In Hastings, the unemployment rate has increased from 4.9 to 13.4 per cent. The unemployment rate has increased on the Isle of Wight from 6.5 to 12.6 per cent. and in Torbay from 6.2 to 13.1 per cent. What a record of failure that map reveals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tyler: The Minister did not give way and nor will I. I do not intend to detain the House, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The criteria that disturb most people are those to be applied in Scotland, where some curious decisions have

been made. In Inverness, the average unemployment rate between 1988 and 1992 was about the same as that in the rest of Britain. In the previous year, 1987, that unemployment rate was less than the national average. For 30 out of 60 months, however, that unemployment rate exceeded the British average, yet Inverness is still unassisted. No doubt the Government have little hope of winning that seat. The criteria have been applied in a similarly idiosyncratic manner to Peebles, Islay, mid Argyll and, to a lesser extent, to Lockerbie, Stirling and Keith.
There are nagging doubts about the way in which the process has been undertaken. The criteria exist for all to see, but their interpretation and the weight that is given to different elements in the package result in curious decisions.
The actual rate of unemployment in a given area should be the basis of the programme.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not. If the Minister did not give way nor will I.
If the rate of unemployment is to be the basis of a real investment strategy to deal with persistent unemployment, that strategy needs to be monitored and reviewed regularly and not just every five or seven years. The programme needs to be part of an overall investment strategy, which also co-ordinates the available funds from Brussels and the Community. It is critical that the maps used correlate and co-ordinate.
Above all, we need an assurance from the Minister that he will return to the House—should that prove possible —to inform us that he has started an initiative within the Community to raise the ceiling. In that way, we will receive the investment necessary to deal with the persistent problem of unemployment throughout the country.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Like others, I intend to be brief.
I never cease to marvel at the conservatism of Opposition Members. They cannot recognise success in regional policy and want to hang on to what they have, without realising that some areas have long-term problems. Among those I include both Hastings and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) quoted the unemployment figure of 4.9 per cent. That was a good blip in Hastings' history of unemployment which, in 1984, stood at its present level. That is probably why it was left out of the list quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Thanet is in exactly the same position.
Our present problems are precisely those that have been addresed in the past by regional policy, which has allowed the north, north-east, Scotland, Wales and most of the midlands to have the industrial infrastructure required to ensure that businesses can succeed. We hope that, with the awarding of assisted area status, we shall be able to build that infrastructure so that we shall eventually be able to relinquish it when the map is reviewed in, we hope, not less than three years' time.
Assisted area status has already had some success in Hastings, where we have had more than 200 inquiries from companies, of which at least 45 per cent. are realistic. If companies in my constituency are interested, other constituencies in the south-east must be having a similar number of inquiries and the poor old Department of Trade and Industry in London is clearly being overwhelmed. We are finding that, instead of the three or four weeks that we were promised it would take to get grants up to £25,000, it is taking eight to 10 weeks and the response to inquiries varies, depending on to whom one talks. The public servant at the end of the phone is undoubtedly overworked. Will the Minister consider redeploying some of the more experienced DTI staff from areas that have been able to relinquish assisted area status down to our offices so that we can benefit from high-quality, highly skilled and experienced people to allow us to build on their expertise and take advantage of the grants to which we are entitled?
The key to the issue is roads, a matter which one must pursue with a different Department. We hope that the granting of assisted area status will allow us to put extra pressure on the Department of Transport so that, when the map is redrawn in few years' time, it will be with enormous pleasure that Hastings will be able to give up assisted area status and pass it on to some other constituency or area that needs it more.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This debate is about unemployment, not just in the north or south but throughout the United Kingdom, and we should be discussing how to deal with that unemployment. If the Government had a policy to fight unemployment, we would be trying not to spread the misery but to create jobs throughout the country.
The Minister says that the EC will give the Government limited funds under the present rules, but it is his job to go back and fight for more resources. We contribute enough and are entitled to a fair share.
It is beyond belief that an inner-city area like Salford in Greater Manchester, where male unemployment is 40 per cent., crime is rife and jobs are being lost week after week, is to lose its assisted area status. It is absolutely criminal. All the local authorities in Greater Manchester are affected in some way. We have seen the decimation of the industrial base in an area where the industrial revolution started.

Mr. David Sumberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: No. Like other Members, I am not giving way.
What is happening in our area is outrageous. We are not satisfied, and we shall not meekly accept the situation. We insist that the Government fight to create jobs, and with the EEC to provide better benefits and more finance. The Government's proposals are completely unsatisfactory. We do not accept them, and we shall return to this issue.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will be aware that there has been great disappointment in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North

(Mr. Elletson) that we have not succeeded in recovering assisted area status. We acknowledge that many areas have severe problems, and we want to persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues that when the assisted areas map is redrawn, which I understand may happen in the next 18 months, greater consideration will be paid to drawing the areas more narrowly.
Blackpool's case for assisted area status has always been hampered because the figures for its travel-to-work area have been artificially improved by the much lower rate of unemployment in the more prosperous inland areas of Fylde and Wyre. As right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know, Blackpool is a community in itself. I hope that when the map is redrawn, Blackpool alone will be considered—not a much wider swathe of the country.
If Blackpool's statistic of three in 10 males unemployed in many inner-town wards—not seasonally, but all year round—were considered, it would undoubtedly have qualified on this occasion. There is great concern in Blackpool about the social problems of crime and urban deprivation that follow in the wake of that unemployment.
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the extent of those problems, and I am grateful to him for agreeing to see a cross-party delegation of local authority representatives and councillors that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and I will take to meet him within the next few weeks. That news, which arrived this afternoon, has been very well received in Blackpool.
The appalling decision by the socialist Commissioner in Brussels, Mr. Bruce Millan—nominated by Labour—not to grant objective 2 status to tourist-related areas, and the refusal of Labour members of the socialist group in the European Parliament to support the Conservative MEP, Mr. Michael Welsh, in his attempt to secure objective 2 status for tourist-related areas throughout the country, is disgraceful. They have sown the wind and, in the next election, they will reap the whirlwind in tourist resorts such as that which I represent.
We hope that a constructive approach will lead to Blackpool securing the assisted area status that it so richly deserves on the next occasion that the map is redrawn.
The situation is particularly severe at present because of the continuing decline in manufacturing industry. It is often forgotten that Blackpool's manufacturing sector has always been significant. Employment in that sector in Blackpool has fallen from 19 per cent. at the beginning of the 1970s to 11 per cent. That is largely due to the crazy employment policies pursued by Labour when in government, which destroyed manufacturing jobs. Even now, we are suffering the consequences of some of those decisions in the loss of jobs in manufacturing.
Only recently, we saw redundancies at Burton's Biscuits in my own constituency, which caused great hardship. It is noticeable that those jobs are going to areas of Scotland and Wales where the multinational that owns that company is developing its plants. I hope very much that we shall hear less rhetoric from the Labour party, that it will acknowledge its shame and responsibility for some of the decisions and that it will accept that all its accusations about the pork barrel are entirely wrong, because many Conservative seats that have been lucky enough to benefit from assisted area status have larger Conservative majorities than my constituency. If it were the politics of the pork barrel, my constituency would have


benefited. The fact that we did not gives the lie to the argument of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to receive the cross-party delegation and to listen carefully to the case that we shall present.

Mr. Ernie Ross: When the Minister announced these changes on 26 July, only one small paragraph dealt with Scotland. He said that the map for Scotland would remain largely unaltered, with one or two changes to travel-to-work areas to reflect changes in relative circumstances.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) hopes to talk about experience in Dumbarton, and the relatively small changes that the Minister mentioned have proved to be quite significant in Dundee, the other area in Scotland that lost full development area status.
Dundee used to rely heavily on the manufacturing sector. It has been in a transitional period and, therefore, has required full support from the Government to continue to develop an alternative to the manufacturing base that was gradually disappearing. The city has made strenuous efforts to achieve that—for example, through tourism with the return of the RRS Discovery, which is a focal point. General Accident was attracted to move its services centre up to Dundee. The city's educational and research centre, particularly the Imperial Cancer Research Campaign, made substantial investment in the Ninewells teaching hospital.
In January, the city will lose full development status and the enterprise zone, leaving us with only objective 2 status, which, it is hoped, will remain. The announcement of those measures has already had an impact on Dundee. Since August, inward investment inquiries have all but dried up and, as the House will know, Dundee has experienced serious job losses. Timex no longer exists in Dundee, with the loss of 500 or 600 jobs. Ballantynes, the card makers, has moved production to Ireland, with the loss of 200 or 300 jobs.

Mr. John McFall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision that the Government made in June is out of date in my constituency, because since then 340 job losses—8 per cent. of unemployment in the area—have been announced? The decision that the Government made is no longer relevant. The Minister accepted from me in a letter that, in the past five years, Dumbarton and its travel-to-work area has had the worst unemployment in the worst 15 per cent. of the country. He accepts the figure for long-term unemployment, but that for current unemployment, which he did as a snapshot, is now out of date in our constituencies. The Government did not serve Scotland well by the decision that they made in July.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Between 1989 and 1991, more than 4,500 jobs were lost in Dundee. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): rose—

Mr. Ross: I cannot give way to the Minister. He will have to ask his right hon. Friend the Minister to allow him a minute in the wind-up.
I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
The Minister must tell us the criteria used in assisted area status reviews. Do they reflect the real circumstances of the regions in this country? We also need continuous monitoring. The Government must commit themselves to that and, given the change in circumstances that we have outlined, a review should take place immediately.
On 26 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) encapsulated everything that Opposition Members are trying to say again tonight. He challenged the Minister to
name a single area that he has downgraded where unemployment has gone down since the present Prime Minister took office? If he cannot name such an area, will he admit that unemployment has gone up in every single one of the 20 areas that he has relegated?"—[Official Report, 26 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 753.]
That is the real question for the Minister tonight. What does he say to those areas; how does he justify the changes to the map?

Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome the granting of assisted area status to many parts of the west country. I also thank the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for letting the cat out of the bag this evening. The people of the west country will have taken note of the fact that it is Labour policy to remove assisted area status from the west country and to take it back, in the hon. Gentleman's words, to where it belongs: the Labour seats up north and in Scotland. So much for Labour's big push for the west country. The people there know where they stand now.
I welcome the Minister's decision to boost the west country. Plymouth has been able to keep its assisted area status, and many parts of rural Devon and Cornwall have been granted it for the first time. The people there warmly welcome it.
This has been a demonstration of the Government's commitment to the west country. It is true that in the past we have sometimes felt ourselves to be the poor relation of other parts of the country. We have even felt like the Cinderella of the United Kingdom. But now, Cinderella is going to the ball.
I am pleased to say that in my constituency, unemployment has fallen in the past 12 months by more than 200—but we still have 4,000 unemployed people, and that is far too many. The retention of assisted area status is a welcome boost to those in my constituency who are looking for jobs. That retention, combined with the work of the Plymouth development corporation and the Trident contract which will come on stream towards the end of the decade, is welcome news for the people of Plymouth and further evidence of the Government's commitment to the west country.
In other parts of rural Devon and Cornwall, unemployment is still far too high. There are reasons for that. Traditional industries such as tourism, defence and agriculture are all in decline, for all sorts of reasons. Even though defence-related job losses are always regretted, the people of the west country know that under a Liberal Democrat Government, with defence cuts of more than 50 per cent., the defence industries of the west country would be decimated. The news that the Labour conference recently voted to scrap Trident did not go down well, as


hon. Members may imagine, in Plymouth. Trident is our lifeline for the future, yet the Labour party, without a thought for the people of Plymouth, voted to scrap it—if the party ever took power—and to kick the people of the city in the teeth.
Whenever he comes to the west country, the Minister is very warmly received. We took a delegation from Devon and Cornwall to see him about assisted area status. He listened carefully. I can encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins); I am sure that the Minister will also listen carefully to his delegation. The Minister listened to us. He has responded. He has demonstrated the Government's commitment to the west country. That is to be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall be brief because I know that many people want to make their points known. I want to speak about my constituency. Aberconwy, the northerly area of my constituency, has recently been recommended for objective 5b status. There has been a great deal of lobbying. I see the Secretary of State for Wales in his place. I note with some satisfaction that the Secretary of State has included the borough of Aberconwy in his proposals for assisted areas and that the Department of Trade and Industry has accepted them.
I have lobbied hard on the issue for some months, as have many members of Gwynedd county council and Aberconwy borough council. So I am pleased. I hope that the Secretary of State will personally continue with the lobby because the designation is a life line to Aberconwy, part of which falls within my constituency. The Secretary of State rightly said in a recent press release that the original exclusion of Aberconwy was an anomaly. That is the precise way in which the campaigners put it. So I believe that the Secretary of State has given the lobby a fair hearing.
However, I pause there because I am very unhappy about the position of the southerly area in my constituency, Meirionnydd. The area has suffered from rural depopulation, the common agricultural policy changes, the effects of poor infrastructure such as roads and lack of inward investment for a considerable number of years. That was recognised in its designation as an intermediate area five years ago. The facts were sufficiently plain then for that status to be accorded to the area. However, during the past three months the Trawsfynydd travel-to-work area, which is geographically vast, has had to come to terms with the impending closure of Trawsfynydd power station. That was announced in July.
Although the announcement was a shock, it was nevertheless on the cards. It was plain as a pikestaff that the station would not run for more than two years in any event, even if it was recommissioned. The Government should have upgraded the assistance to full development status. The criteria have been met since the announcement. Indeed, they were met before that. Now it is a compelling case. The Government have lost a golden opportunity. Despite all the lobbying and arguing and all the deputations that they received, they did not give us much of a fair hearing.
In fairness, the Welsh Office has agreed, in principle at least, through the Secretary of State, that enterprise zones

should be set up in the area. That fact alone, welcome as it is, underlines the fact that help is desperately needed. The Secretary of State has been positive and forthright on the issue of Trawsfynydd. But I must reiterate that upgrading the status to full development status would have been both justified and timely.
I urge the Minister even now to reconsider the status of Meirionnydd. The loss of 550 jobs may not seem a huge blow objectively. But I can tell the House that it means the loss of more than 1,000 jobs in the locality, both directly and indirectly. Those jobs will be lost to the local economy, together with more than £12 million. That is in a sparsely populated area of Wales with high unemployment. We need full development status if we are to restore prosperity to Meirionnydd. The area is losing out and there is a paucity of inward investment because we are not playing on a level playing field. The area has to compete with Merseyside, which has objective 1 status, Deeside, which has full development status, and other areas of north Wales.
The Government are always happy to talk about level playing fields in the European context. Give the people of Meirionnydd a level playing field so that they can have job opportunities equal to those in other parts of north Wales, Merseyside and beyond. I ask the Government reconsider even at the eleventh hour and to award full development status to Meirionnydd, coupled with objective 5b status to Nant Conwy, which will enable the constituents to have a fair share of assistance, which they rightly deserve.

Mr. Salmond: While the hon. Gentleman has been defending the interests of his constituency, he may not have had an opportunity to observe the behaviour of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). His role throughout the debate seems to have been to sit like a stookie, saying absolutely nothing. When it has been pointed out that the total assistance budget of the Scottish Office is worth a third of what it was worth when the Government took office, the Minister has wriggled uncomfortably in his seat. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Minister is suffering from a guilty conscience?

Mr. Llwyd: I cannot speak for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland; but I urge Welsh Office Ministers to do all that they can to address the problems of my constituency. Surely, even at this late hour, it is not beyond them to reconsider.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) failed to give way to me. He drew a neat distinction between north and south, as Labour Members normally do. He has probably done many of us a great favour, because it will not be lost on my constituents and many others in south-east England that the Labour party wishes the pork barrel to roll to the north, and is cheerfully prepared to abandon not only our interests but the United Kingdom's interests in the south-east. That point has been very firmly taken, and will be very well made by us.
It was not entirely surprising—certainly to Conservative Members, and, I suspect, to some Opposition Members as well—that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) sat firmly astride the fence. He did


not indicate whether he intended to vote for the motion or against it—or, indeed, whether he intended to vote at all. My guess is that his party will probably not vote at all.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: I shall be delighted to do so. Which way will the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Tyler: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will certainly vote for the motion.

Mr. Gale: Having opposed all the achievements in my right hon. Friend's speech, the hon. Gentleman is going to vote for the motion. Now we know where we stand.
One issue has not been made clear; let me try to make it clear now. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to the assistance granted to areas of north-east Kent; he referred in particular to Dover and Deal, and to the Thanet travel-to-work area, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and myself.
What the hon. Gentleman has signally failed to recognise, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken on board so perfectly, is this. For many years, the French Government have been pouring money into Nord Pas de Calais, and jobs have been created over and over again there and around the French side of the channel tunnel that could and should have been coming to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has taken that on board: he has fought extremely hard for the United Kingdom, and has seized the opportunity for us to achieve not jobs for Warrington, Blackburn, Manchester or somewhere else in the north, but jobs that would come to the United Kingdom rather than going to France. I am rather surprised, and a little disappointed, that some Opposition Members are not willing to recognise that.
We shall work very hard in the east Kent travel-to-work area—particularly in Thanet—to ensure that we take maximum advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded to us to create jobs not just for the people of east Kent and the south-east, but for the people of the United Kingdom. That is what my right hon. Friend has sought to achieve.

Ms Mildred Gordon: I must express deep disappointment that Tower Hamlets has not been included in the list of assisted-area-status regions. The Minister said that neighbouring areas have been included, so that there will be jobs within travelling distance; but those areas themselves have high unemployment, as has Tower Hamlets. He also seemed to imply that the infrastructure was not there. Well, we have had 10 years of the London Docklands Development Corporation, and for years Tower Hamlets has been like a bomb site, with continuous road building and development works. Companies such as Olympia and York have been allowed to take huge areas of land and start a little pile driving for vast development projects—Heron Quays, for instance—which everyone knows will never take place. The roads are there, the land is there, but the money is not there, because it has been spent wrongly by a Government quango. The LDDC, letting market forces rip, has produced a net job loss.
People in Tower Hamlets are desperate. I think that their desperation was shown in the protest vote that allowed a BNP candidate to get on to the council. The people of

Tower Hamlets are desperate and are crying out for help. They need help; they need jobs; they need assistance. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will change their mind and realise that it is essential that Tower Hamlets be given assisted area status.

Mr. Rupert Allason: As a result of his ill-considered attack on this order, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has effectively undermined all the hard work that went into the presentation made by the cross-party delegation to my right hon. Friend the Minister when Torbay made an application for the restoration of intermediate assisted area status. That delegation was led by me, together with the deputy leader of Torbay borough council, who is a Liberal. I shall take great pleasure in telling him of the attack made on the order. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has effectively pulled the rug from under those whose jobs have been lost already—there: is 13 per cent. unemployment in my constituency—and those whose jobs are at risk.
In the south-west, we suffer from tremendous problems because of the inevitable rundown of the defence industries and in Torbay we are concerned about the loss of the fishing industry. That is a particular problem which we highlighted when we made our presentation to the Department of Trade and Industry. Also, the recession has hit the tourist industry hard. There are plenty of empty hotels in my constituency.
The long-term unemployed in my constituency will remember that Opposition Members intend to vote against the order. The consequences of the rejection of the order for people who are anxious to find employment will be exceptionally damaging. I shall take the opportunity to remind my constituents of the position taken by Opposition Members.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take the view that intermediate status is but a first step. The second step must be for his Department to supply information to all those who wish to pursue the grants and other advantages of having intermediate status. Two officials have come to talk to the business community in Torbay, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for that initiative. Will he also undertake to open a separate department so that people can apply to his officials and obtain all the information so that we can take full advantage of this? After all, this is partly European money and, given that this country is but one of the two net contributors to the European Community budget, it is only fair that we should obtain our fair share of it.
I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy in receiving the delegation. On this occasion, I take great pleasure in supporting the Government.

Mr. Alan Milburn: Darlington is one of the principal losers from the new assisted areas map. As the: Minister is aware, it is a town and area of vast economic: potential, but it requires assistance from the Government if it is to realise that potential and overcome the competitive disadvantages faced by an area in the north-east.
We are some distance from the centre of the European single market and we have the same sort of deep-rooted structural problems which assail many parts of the


north-east and which have given the region an unenviable record—the highest rate of regional unemployment in every month since the Government took office in the middle of 1979. This map does nothing to put that right. In fact, it makes matters worse. It switches resources away from the north and away from Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Morley: No Opposition Member wants to attack another part of the country that is suffering the same sort of problems caused by the Government, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should explain why some constituencies have been granted assisted area status, while constituencies such as mine in Glanford and Scunthorpe and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) have higher unemployment rates than some of those constituencies that are new to assisted area status? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should explain why that anomaly exists?

Mr. Milburn: Indeed, the Minister should explain the anomaly and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.
There is no doubt that the recession has hit hard in once prosperous parts of Britain. Who would have thought in 1979 that Cardiff, Clacton, Wisbech, Wakefield, Hastings and Hartlepool would one day share a common label as areas in need of special economic assistance? The Government's triumph has been the creation of a level playing field in which economic decline and devastation stalk the whole land—not just the north-east, not just Scotland and not just Wales, but the whole country.
I have a great deal of sympathy for people living in Thanet, in Dover, in Deal, in Southend and in the other areas that have gained from the changes. Those areas had lost out through no fault of their own and they deserved help, but their gain should not be our loss. We should not lose out at the expense of overwhelmingly Tory parts of the country. The Government have ended up by playing off area against area and town against town. By cutting the regional aid budget in the middle of a recession, they have forced hundreds of towns to compete for slices of an ever-diminishing regional aid cake.
To make matters worse, we have not even been told by the Minister this evening how the winners and the losers were arrived at. We are left in the dark. All that we know is that Darlington and other losers have been relegated because they have lost out to higher-scoring towns in an assisted areas game being played by rules that have not been made clear even to the competitors. The Minister's failure to come clean about the issue and to publish the individual assessments on each travel-to-work area's bid for inclusion in the new map leaves us with only one clear impression—that the new map is the product of political gerrymandering.
There is other evidence to bear out that assertion. Why did the Government decide to give assisted area status to parts of certain travel-to-work areas, despite an assurance that the map would be based only on whole travel-to-work areas? Like has not been compared with like. As a result, the prospects for statistical jiggery-Pokery have been increased massively, which shows in the results.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) alluded to the fact that it was overwhelmingly Conservative areas that were gainers. That is true. Some

109 Conservative areas have gained; just 76 Labour areas have gained. Some 50 per cent. more Labour areas than Tory areas have lost out. Unless the Minister is able to give credible answers to those questions, he will rightly stand accused of fixing the new map for political ends and of vainly trying to prop up crumbling Tory support, especially in the south of England. The fact that Darlington has been made a victim will not be forgotten. I hope that the Minister, even tonight at this 11th hour, will rethink his proposals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I call Mr. Sainsbury.

Mr. Sainsbury: There have been a number—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the Minister is able to speak twice only by leave of the House. As far as I am concerned, he should not have that leave, as he refused to allow interventions during his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the House give leave for the Minister to speak again?

Hon. Members: No.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry that we cannot hear the Minister. The House will have to make do with me instead.
I shall make three simple points. First, it is clear that whenever these decisions are made, some people feel genuinely aggrieved and some feel delighted. We have to make decisions on a complex formula, considering not just unemployment, but long-term unemployment, future job gaps and activity rates. All Conservative Members know that the Minister, being a straight, honourable and truthful man, will have made decisions for the right reasons. However, it would help to encourage understanding of the decisions if they were made by an independent body and not by politicians, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat.
Secondly, we should not be too enthusiastic about regional aid. We should remember that, for every area that receives regional aid, a neighbouring area does not and will therefore suffer and lose employment. The massive improvement in the relative position of Scotland proves that, if one piles in aid, one merely worsens the relative position of other areas.
Thirdly, we should remember that not one penny of this money is Euro-money. Some people may say that we should simply go and get more money, but I remind them that it is not Euro-money. Hon. Members should appreciate that the Government are not able to spend our money to create jobs for our people without the specific permission of a bloke called Mr. van Miert. He was given a list, at the foot of which was Southend. For what I am sure were perfectly good reasons—the same happened to Germany and France—he cut a slice off the foot of the list. Even if we think that that is scandalous, wrong or outrageous, there is nothing we can do—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 223.

Division No. 373]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Ainger, Nick
Illsley, Eric


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ingram, Adam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jamieson, David


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Battle, John
Khabra, Piara S.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bell, Stuart
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leighton, Ron


Bennett, Andrew F.
Lewis, Terry


Benton, Joe
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bermingham, Gerald
McAllion, John


Boyce, Jimmy
McAvoy, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Macdonald, Calum


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McFall, John


Byers, Stephen
McGrady, Eddie


Caborn, Richard
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McLeish, Henry


Cann, Jamie
McMaster, Gordon


Chisholm, Malcolm
McNamara, Kevin


Clapham, Michael
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Madden, Max


Clelland, David
Mahon, Alice


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marek, Dr John


Coffey, Ann
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Corbett, Robin
Martlew, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Michael, Alun


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cryer, Bob
Milburn, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Morgan, Rhodri


Darling, Alistair
Morley, Elliot


Davidson, Ian
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Denham, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dixon, Don
Mudie, George


Dobson, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Donohoe, Brian H.
Murphy, Paul


Dowd, Jim
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Eagle, Ms Angela
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Eastham, Ken
O'Hara, Edward


Enright, Derek
Olner, William


Etherington, Bill
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pickthall, Colin


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pope, Greg


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gerrard, Neil
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Purchase, Ken


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Raynsford, Nick


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Gunnell, John
Rooney, Terry


Hain, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hanson, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Heppell, John
Short, Clare


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Simpson, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hoyle, Doug
Stevenson, George





Stott, Roger
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. John Spellar and


Winnick, David
Mr. Alan Meale.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
French, Douglas


Alton, David
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Gallie, Phil


Arbuthnot, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Garnier, Edward


Ashby, David
Gill, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Gorst, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hague, William


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bates, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hargreaves, Andrew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harvey, Nick


Booth, Hartley
Haselhurst, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hayes, Jerry


Bowden, Andrew
Heald, Oliver


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Hendry, Charles


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Robert


Bright, Graham
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Budgen, Nicholas
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burns, Simon
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Burt, Alistair
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butler, Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Carttiss, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coe, Sebastian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knox, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dicks, Terry
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dover, Den
Legg, Barry


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lightbown, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fabricant, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Malone, Gerald


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, Dudley
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mates, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick






Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Milligan, Stephen
Spring, Richard


Mills, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moate, Sir Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stem, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patnick, Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Rendel, David
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Tyler, Paul


Robathan, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Willetts, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speed, Sir Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.

Antiquities (Registration and Export)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Richard Spring: May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of speaking this evening, and may I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being present to reply to the debate.
In my constituency there is an environmentally sensitive area called Breckland, which was densely populated in prehistoric times. Archaeologists have unearthed numerous objects from the Roman and Saxon periods. Sadly, however, an unknown number of valuable objects have been removed from the area via the use of metal detectors. Many of my constituents have expressed their alarm to me that much of our unique local and national heritage has disappeared unrecorded and illegally. Publicity has rightly been accorded to the valiant efforts of my constituent, Mr. John Browning, to retrieve objects removed from his farm at Icklingham. His costs in doing so have exceeded £100,000.
It would be instructive to consider the succession of events surrounding the illegal removal and exportation of the Icklingham bronzes, as they have become known. In 1982, rumours reached the Suffolk constabulary that a valuable find had been dug up on Mr. Browning's farm, and an investigation was undertaken. In 1983, my constituent was informed that an important hoard had been removed from his farm, coupled with a warning from the police not to approach illicit metal detectorists as they could be violent. Nine years ago, Thames Television produced a documentary showing pictures of pagan temple bronzes apparently removed from Icklingham. In 1985, an archaeologist wrote to the Suffolk archaeological unit to say that the actual find spot and identification of the hoard had been confirmed by the thieving finders. Between 1980 and 1993, 13 illicit treasure hunters were caught and prosecuted—two for assaulting police officers.
The bronzes were traced to the United States. In 1990, the Crown Prosecution Service informed the police, who believed that they had a strong case, that they were unable to proceed with prosecutions and no extradition order would be given. Although the present owners of the bronzes indicated that they would bequeath the bronzes to the British museum, litigation has clouded their future. The 16 or more Romano-British bronzes date from the first or second century BC and have been valued at £1.5 million.
My constituent's farm covers a substantial Roman settlement. In 1974, the site was scheduled as an ancient monument. My concern and that of Mr. Browning and bodies such as the Society of Antiquaries is that this episode highlights weaknesses in the law and voluntary codes designed to stop the illegal looting and export of cultural property. Despite our having extradition arrangements for criminals with the United States, it is clear that there is no adequate mechanism for the seizure and return of cultural property that is patently important to our national heritage.
Before exploring that further, I commend to the House the excellent work done by the Suffolk constabulary in precisely laying out appropriate guidelines which could well be copied by other police forces. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that amateur metal detecting is a legitimate hobby. Its governing body is the National


Council for Metal Detecting. Amateur metal detecting has greatly added to our body of knowledge of objects of historic importance However, only the failure to report treasure trove carries legal sanction, and the decision to report other finds is that of the finder and/or landowner. The national council prepared a code of conduct which reflects sensitivity to the landowner, the country way of life and the objects themselves.
The Suffolk constabulary has made it clear that it is unlawful to search in a protected site such as that of Mr. Browning without obtaining permission from the landowner and the Secretary of State via English Heritage. On scheduled ancient monuments, no one may use a metal detector without such prior consent. Of course, treasure trove, largely gold and silver objects, belong to the Crown and a failure to report involves a criminal offence. I should add that any possible cash reward goes to the finder, not the landowners, unless they are personally involved in the finding.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the Select Committee on National Heritage took evidence on the export of works of art one year ago, flowing from the EC draft directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from a member state and draft regulations on the export of cultural goods. I quote from the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the Council of British Archaeology:
National protection of archaeological objects logically begins with a system for the routine reporting, recording and conservation of finds. Such a system is commonplace throughout the world. Sadly, there is no such system in this country. Treasure trove is all that we have; and that mechanism is an absurd and ineffectual anachronism. It protects no more than a fraction of the minuscule element of objects made of silver or gold. In this, field also, the CBA has been, for more than a quarter of a century, pressing for legal reform. However, there has been no response from government and nothing has yet been achieved.
In evidence to the Committee, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn specifically alluded to the Icklingham bronzes as a glaring example of looting and illegal exportation.
I fully accept that London must remain the premier art market in the world, generating perhaps between £3 billion and £3.5 billion annually. But however we address the problem of cultural objects, that should not involve a costly and ineffective monitoring process that could either drive the art market abroad or enlarge the black market in cultural objects. As 90 per cent. of all finds are not covered by the term treasure trove, it is clear that a considerable part of our national heritage disappears into the black market or goes abroad via sale rooms every year. The issue is clear. The Icklingham horde has dramatically highlighted the problem. Clearly, our archaeological inheritance is being jeopardised, yet is some new legally enforceable protection warranted?
There is national inconsistency in the treatment of this matter. In Scotland any object of archaeological interest dug up must be registered, with the Crown exercising the right to claim it, subject to compensation. Only treasure trove is afforded similar treatment in England and Wales. However, it is arguable that in practice the problem is more manageable in Scotland. Registration of all objects at least 100 years old could be enshrined in law, but the process could potentially be oppressively bureaucratic. At least then, however, we might be able to measure more precisely the true breadth and depth of our inheritance. Any registration could, for example, be accompanied by the presentation of a certified document which may well

enhance the object's saleroom attractiveness in due course. To make this work, finders would be obliged to report and register their discoveries. I shall return to this point and examine its practicality.
What is certain is that all interested parties are unhappy with the present situation. There is basically a similarity of view from the three relevant heritage bodies—the Council for British Archaeology, the Museums Association and the Society of Antiquaries. There is also a clear recognition that dealers in antiquities, given the importance of the London art market, should feel able to operate under any new code or statutory provision. Any tightening should not jeopardise their legitimate business activities.
I have already mentioned the violent behaviour of illegal metal detectorists, which is a source of embarrassment to the National Council of Metal Detecting. Regrettably, the very portability of certain antiquities means that they are an easy way of laundering drugs money across the globe. Some now believe it important that all metal detectors should be licensed. This could help the police to protect scheduled ancient monuments more effectively. Again, however, this may not adequately prevent illegal activity. The previous licensing system was a failure.
One thing is crystal clear: legislation is long overdue to abolish market overt. This is the ridiculous situation whereby in long-established markets, such as Bermondsey, good title will be awarded to the buyer of goods purchased between sunrise and sunset, even if stolen. This is taking national eccentricity to an unwelcome extreme and simply provides a conduit for the alarming upsurge in burglary in Britain of all objects.
What is clear is that there is an increasing revulsion against the looting of cultural objects in the United States, the destination of so many stolen items. In January this year, the New York Times highlighted a number of repatriations of dubiously acquired cultural objects. This often flows from settlements of law suits and negotiations, and American museums are now more sensitive to this problem.
Many people believe that it is Britain's failure to sign up to the UNESCO convention on cultural property that has exacerbated our particular problem. Some believe that our failure to ratify has meant that London is the clearing house for stolen artefacts. It is true that the UNESCO convention has attempted to establish a framework to curb looting and the illicit trade in antiquities. But the experience of the United States is instructive; legislation was implemented in 1983 to enable it to become a full partner in the UNESCO covenant. Undoubtedly, pre-Colombian artefacts have been substantially stopped from entering the United States, but the market has simply moved elsewhere. There is no clear unanimity that the UNESCO convention will substantially address the issue of the continuing denuding of our own national heritage.
On 15 December the EC Council directive on the return of cultural objects comes into force. This seeks to allow a requesting member state to apply to another member state for the return of an illegally exported, important, cultural object. The directive has been widely welcomed. It does not apply outside the EC.
I am, however, encouraged by the fact that UNIDROIT, an intergovernmental organisation based in Rome, is seeking to draft codes that would harmonise different countries' laws on the illegal traffic in cultural objects. At


an international level, the appalling episode of the Icklingham bronzes must be addressed as an object lesson in what can go wrong.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for sending to me the UNIDROIT draft proposals, which simplify the UNESCO convention. I await with interest to learn how much progress has been made in the negotiations aimed at achieving a consensus. It will be extremely useful and important to obtain an international consensus on the illicit trade in cultural objects. Nevertheless, we must return to the present-day situation at home.
There have been calls from distinguished heritage organisations for a comprehensive recording and registering process for cultural objects. Perhaps the narrow definition of treasure trove could be expanded. Obviously there is a balance to be struck. Compulsory reporting of such objects may prove to be expensive and complicated. That may put immense pressure on museums' resources and storage space. Such a process may increase avoidance of the rules. Perhaps, as a compromise, there could be a greater range and/or value limit of items that would require registration so that at least the most important finds would be registered. It would need to be made clear to finders how such objects could be inspected and appropriate advice given. Perhaps also there could be actual incentives to report interesting finds.
All that would require a heightened level of public awareness of the responsibilities of finders to our archaeological inheritance—in effect, an educational process. As a nation, we rejoice in our heritage in a way which makes our civilisation special. Portable antiquities are part of our inheritance, which is irreplaceable if lost. I am pleased that active discussions are under way between the Department of National Heritage and Britain's relevant heritage organisations.
In raising this issue I hope that, at minimum, the reward to my constituent, who has so valiantly fought for justice, with dedication and perseverance—and at great personal cost—will be that the disgraceful saga of the Icklingham bronzes will never, ever be repeated.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for raising the subject of the registration and export of antiquities. I hope that my hon. Friend, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if I deliver my speech at a rather faster pace than normal because it is such an important subject and I have a great deal to say to my hon. Friend.
The issue is a fascinating and complex issue which is of great importance for archaeological policy. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the Icklingham case, in his constituency, raises issues about the protection of our archaeological heritage which must be a matter of real concern. I cannot hope to deal with every aspect of those issues, but I should like to comment on some of the very interesting points that my hon. Friend has raised.
This is, incidentally, a subject which clearly demonstrates the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in deciding to create the new Department of National Heritage. Until last year, responsibilities were

spread across three Whitehall Departments: treasure trove rested with the Treasury; the export of works of art with the Department of Trade and Industry; and general policy for portable archaeological finds with the Department of the Environment. That situation created serious obstacles to coherent policy making. Now that all those responsibilities have been brought together in one Department, we have a new opportunity to address the issues in a comprehensive way. I hope that I will be able to convince my hon. Friend that we are making a start on this, though there is much still to be done.
I will not repeat the details which my hon. Friend gave of the case of the Icklingham bronzes. That saga has involved a great deal of worry, effort and expense for my hon. Friend's constituent, and well illustrates some of the problems that we need to address. I will give a brief outline of the existing arrangements for the protection of archaeological sites and finds, and indicate where we see a need for further action.
At present the protection afforded by the law varies according to whether or not a site is scheduled, and whether or not a find is classed as treasure trove. I have a great deal to say about treasure trove, but I sh all leave it to the end and, if I have time, I shall refer to it. I know that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about it anyway.
The law does, of course, provide a degree of protection for all scheduled archaeological sites and monuments. There are about 14,000 scheduled sites in England. It is an offence to remove any object from a scheduled site by the use of a metal detector without permission. We intend to strengthen the legal protection for scheduled sites at the next opportunity by prohibiting unauthorised removal of objects by whatever means they are found, by widening the definition of "damaged" and "archaeological site" and by providing that ignorance is no defence against a charge of damage. Those steps will have added importance as the number of scheduled sites is doubled over the next 10 years under English Heritage's monument protection programme.
For the many thousands of unscheduled archaeological sites, protection is less adequate. Taking items of value from someone else's land is theft and will usually involve trespass as well. There is therefore scope for action to be taken against illegal treasure hunters under both the civil and criminal law. Some police forces work closely with local landowners and farmers, and with the local museums service, to ensure that as effective action as possible is taken against illegal activity. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the excellent work of the Norfolk and Suffolk police; other forces, such as Surrey, are also very active. But there are often real practical difficulties for the police, and for landowners, in securing convictions: partly because treasure hunting so often takes place at very remote sites, and in darkness; and partly because, once objects are removed from a site, it is difficult to demonstrate their provenance if their very existence was previously unknown. The Icklingham case sadly demonstrates that point very clearly.
Some leading archaeological bodies have argued for a system of compulsory registration of all archaeological finds, or for compulsory licensing of metal detectors. Archaeologists often point to the very different situation in Scotland, where treasure trove legislation effectively applies to all artefacts over 100 years old whose ownership is unknown.
There are differing views on that issue, even within the archaeological world. I have some reservations as to whether compulsory registration of finds, or licensing of treasure hunters, is the right way forward at this stage. The situation in England is very different from that in Scotland: there, the number of archaeological finds is much smaller than in England—probably fewer than in East Anglia alone —and the expectations of treasure hunters are coloured by the fact that the requirement to report finds has been part of Scottish law for hundreds of years. To seek to impose compulsory registration in England, in the face of likely opposition from metal detectorists and others, would present the police with an impossible task and risk bringing the law into disrepute. Many museums would also face considerable resource problems in handling reported finds, let alone finding the money to buy them. The system could become discredited if reporting had no outcome of real practical benefit to archaeological research.
As I have already mentioned, the Government intend to strengthen legal protection for scheduled sites. Reform of treasure trove legislation may also offer the opportunity to bring some further limited categories of finds within the scope of the reporting requirements. Beyond that, I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to see the process initially as one of education, persuasion and reassurance rather than as one where a change in the law can be effective overnight. What is needed is a change in public attitudes and understanding, rather similar to the changes which have taken place in other areas—for instance, in relation to the theft of birds' eggs from nests and the destructive picking of wild flowers. At this stage, I see little point in introducing a compulsory system that could easily prove to be both bureaucratic and largely ineffectual.
We intend to publish a public discussion paper on the whole issue of portable archaeological finds in the first half of 1994. Our current view is that the best way forward now may lie in the formulation of a voluntary code of practice that has the support not only of the archaeological and museum communities but of bodies representing the treasure hunters themselves. Those who join national organisations probably act responsibly in any case, for the most part, but the more we can get agreement among all parties on a voluntary basis of reporting, perhaps by offering a measure of reassurance on confidential reporting for instance, the more likely we are to make progress with this difficult issue. A code of practice could, at any rate, provide a starting point. But we shall want to consider all aspects of the issue in the light of responses before finally deciding on the way ahead.
The UK's non-ratification of the 1970 UNESCO convention has often been mentioned in relation to the Icklingham bronzes; but ratification of that convention would not have helped in their recovery. It is a public law convention that deals with the illicit removal and subsequent recovery of publicly owned objects. It does not apply, therefore, to archaeological objects that have been illicitly removed in the United Kingdom, as here the ownership of such objects does not rest with the state.
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the potential loss to the United Kingdom by export of important archaeological material. As the House knows, an export licence is required for any archaeological object recovered from the soil in the United Kingdom or from our territorial waters. That applies regardless of the monetary value of an individual item, the identity of the owner or the item's export destination.
It is for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to enforce licensing controls at ports—and it does so on a wide range of goods whose export is either prohibited or restricted. However, with the volume of trade and passengers, those controls must of necessity be highly selective. Effective targeting greatly depends on the timely availability of information, but evidence of breaches of export restrictions is actively pursued.
The completion of the single market has meant the removal of a customs presence at internal borders but, as allowed for under the treaty of Rome, we have adopted additional measures of protection for cultural objects. A Council regulation on exports to destinations outside the Community has been in operation since 1 April, and a complementary directive will soon be in place.
The directive will provide a mechanism for one member state to request the return of a "national treasure" from another member state where the national treasure has been unlawfully removed from the first member state. That includes any archaeological object, irrespective of its monetary value, provided that it is a national treasure. In the United Kingdom, a "national treasure" would be an object declared to be of Waverley standard before or after its unlawful removal.
We aim at implementing the directive in United Kingdom law by mid-December, and are currently undertaking public consultation on the way in which we intend to undertake that implementation.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, on the wider international front we have been actively participating in discussions of a draft UNIDROIT convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. That is an innovative attempt to address the public law provisions of the 1970 UNESCO convention and to take some of those concepts into private law. Again, it would apply to archaeological material, although, by its nature, evidence of the date and place of clandestine removal will always be a problem.
I cannot anticipate whether the United Kingdom will become a signatory to the UNIDROIT convention, but we have been working constructively with other countries participating in those discussions. As with the Community directive, we hope that we can achieve a convention that could be a mutually acceptable compromise to as many states as possible. We await a revised draft, following a meeting of national experts that took place in Rome at the end of last month and the beginning of this month.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are well aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention and are addressing the issues energetically. We are examining the possibility of reforming the law of treasure trove, and intend to consult publicly early next year on the possibility of introducing a voluntary code of practice for other portable archaeological finds. We are fully involved in international efforts to regulate trade in antiquities and the problem of illegal exports. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friend the new Department's determination to get to grips with the issues without delay.
The law of treasure trove is fascinating. Its origins can be traced to at least the 11th century. Essentially, finds of gold or silver objects, wherever found, must be reported to the coroner. If he confirms that they are treasure trove, the find is the property of the Crown. The practical effect of that now is that national and local museums are given the opportunity to acquire the find. If they want to do so, they


are required to pay the full market value to the finder. If they do not, the finder is free to keep the treasure or to sell it, as he or she wishes.
Within its limits, that system can work well. It provides a mechanism whereby responsible treasure seekers can report their finds without fear of financial loss. They know that if a museum decides to acquire the find a fair market price will be paid. It is of course crucial that finders continue to have confidence that ex gratia awards reflect full market value. The fact that they have that confidence reflects great credit on the treasure trove reviewing committee, which has the difficult task of making a fair and independent valuation of whatever has been found.
But treasure trove has severe shortcomings in its present form. It relates only to objects with a substantial gold or silver content, reflecting its origins as a means of raising revenue for the Crown rather than furthering archaeological research. Even when objects of base metal are found

closely associated with gold and silver objects, they cannot be declared treasure trove, whatever their potential archaeological importance, and even gold and silver objects are treasure trove only if they were deliberately hidden with the intention of later recovery—a point that may be virtually impossible to decide after 2,000 years or more.
We recognise these inadequacies and are considering proposals for a private Member's Bill to reform the present law—that is a thought for my hon. Friend—put forward by Lord Perth and the Surrey Archaeological Society, with support from the British museum. As my right hon. Friend made clear to the sponsors of the Bill earlier this year, we felt unable to support some of their original proposals, but detailed discussions are now under way and I certainly hope that it will be possible for us to give our support to a modified package before long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve midnight.